Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Mental Health Act 1982

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1982.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 was consolidated with the 1959 Act into the Mental Health Act 1983, almost all of which was implemented on 30 September this year. The various orders and regulations that were required under the Act were made in the early summer and a full memorandum of guidance, new forms and leaflets for patients and their relatives were distributed during the summer. The Mental Health Act Commission has commenced work and has been undertaking visits, investigating complaints and providing second opinions required under the Act.

Mr. Proctor: As, on 29 September, 316 people were in prison and yet, under the definition in the Act, were suffering from mental disorder, will my hon. and learned Friend try to achieve speedy implementation of sections 35 and 36, which relate to remands to hospitals for reports and treatment, and of section 38, which deals with interim hospital arrangements?

Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the problems to which he has drawn attention. The Government are anxious to implement those parts of the Act. We shall consult the relevant authorities about the appropriate procedures to do that in the near future.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister agree that it is utterly inappropriate that, at any one time, some 200 mentally disordered offenders are in prison when they would more appropriately be dealt with in hospital? What progress does he expect to make in removing them from prison and removing from special hospitals people who are awaiting transfers to National Health Service psychiatric hospitals?

Mr. Clarke: The prison medical service and the Government are trying to achieve an improvement in both respects. I entirely share the anxiety that is felt about the matter. It is wrong that there are people in prison who should be receiving treatment in hospital. We have already brought into effect the provisions which oblige regional

health authorities to help courts which want to place a mentally disordered offender. We must now implement the other provisions which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) mentioned.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister take note of section 2 (2), which excludes drug abusers? Will he amend the Act, or introduce new legislation, to ensure that the appropriate penalty, which was imposed on the Scottish brothers yesterday for pushing glue solvents, will be available in the rest of the United Kingdom, so that the evil merchants of death can be dealt with? Does he agree that young people should not be sent to hospital because other people are not in prison where they belong?

Mr. Clarke: The problem of what is known as solvent abuse—glue sniffing—falls outside the legislation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has been studying closely the problem of glue sniffing and hopes to make a statement in due course. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's anxiety about the problem.

NHS (Abuses)

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the level and cost of patient abuse of the National Health Service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): No, Sir. Responsible use of the Health Service helps us all by enabling it to work more effectively. I am sure that most people understand that, but there is at the moment no objective definition of abuse on which an estimate could be based.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing problem with patients not turning up for appointments at hospitals? Does he agree that that is a serious problem, which results in the waste of consultants' time and valuable Health Service resources? Has he any plans to deal with it?

Mr. Patten: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It should be pointed out there are some 37 million outpatient appointments in hospitals in any one year and it cannot be doubted that people not turning up for appointments cause inconvenience and waste money. At the moment, the problem is best dealt with by local initiatives in hospitals where the consultants and those who make the appointments can draw the attention of patients to the importance of keeping their appointments.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that one technical abuse of the NHS in urban areas is the use of casualty departments in general hospitals by homeless persons as a form of general practitioner service? Will the hon. Gentleman examine the Leeds experiment of providing a general practitioner service for homeless persons in the city and apply the lessons learnt elsewhere?

Mr. Patten: I shall consider the lessons that we can draw from Leeds. Many people, particularly in inner city areas, tend to use accident and emergency facilities rather than those of the general practitioner. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced an initiative to provide better standards of care in inner city areas where they are much needed, which has been broadly welcomed in the House.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that some foreigners who come into Britain and use the NHS try hard to pay for the service that they receive but are prevented from doing so by the hospital administrators?

Mr. Patten: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health is actively reviewing the situation.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister accept that a more important form of abuse of the NHS is the abuse of its facilities by private hospitals? Was not the Prime Minister involved in the worst form of abuse by giving the impression, when she had her eye operation, that only the private sector could provide the necessary treatment, and not disclosing that the private hospital that she attended had to borrow vital equipment from the King Edward VII NHS hospital nearby?

Mr. Patten: That is a thoroughly silly question. The Government are bent on providing a better standard of health care for all. If that can be achieved in co-operation with the private sector, so much to the good.

NHS (Catering)

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received in relation to the privatisation of catering services in the National Health Service.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): We have received a number of inquiries from firms interested in NHS catering contracts since our health circular on competitive tendering for support services was issued in September.

Mr. Fatchett: Apart from the fact that some firms are looking for easy pickings from the contracts, will the Secretary of State note the recent comment by the vice-chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority that the privatisation of catering services would lead to a reduction in standards and a loss of patient care? Given the disastrous experience of privatisation in local government, is it not about time that the Minister changed his policy of enforced privatisation and put patients first rather than profits for private companies?

Mr. Fowler: The whole purpose of the policy is to put patients first. The Government's policy is that the private sector should be given the opportunity to tender for a range of services on a fair comparison basis. The whole point of the policy is that if savings are made they go to patient care. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support such a policy.

Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to fulfil our pledge to cut taxes we must reduce NHS spending and reduce also the largest work force in western Europe, and that the only way to do so is to pursue vigorously a policy of privatisation?

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir, I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. The Government stand by the NHS. We wish to make the Health Service more efficient and effective. The NHS is a concept which the Government entirely support.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that Trust Houses Forte Ltd. and Town and City Properties Ltd. are the two principal companies hoping to pick up the catering tab from the privatisation of the NHS, and they

have shareholder lists that read like a roll call of the Tory party, including the former chairman of the Tory party, a host of Tory Members of Parliament, both past and present, and some Tory Ministers?
Does not privatisation mean forcing down the pay of some of the lowest paid in the NHS in order to enhance the profits of greedy Tory shareholders, many of whom are the colleagues of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Fowler: I can hardly compete with what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, because that is another thoroughly silly question from the Opposition Front Bench. The point is that the money from savings by contracting-out is spent on patient care. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks the Health Service is all about. It is a user. It is a service that is provided not for the providers but for patients.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Patchett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff in his Department have been involved in investigating cases of discrimination against disabled people which have been reported to him since the beginning of 1983; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The bulk of the work on cases of alleged discrimination is handled by four staff in the Department, along with their other duties. But a number of other staff both in DHSS and other Departments have been involved in pursuing inquiries on particular cases which were relevant to their responsibilities.

Mr. Patchett: What action can the Minister take when cases of discrimination against the disabled are reported to him? To be more precise, what powers does the Department have to deal with discrimination?

Mr. Newton: The main action that we take is to make further inquiries among those against whom discrimination is alleged. We then consider their response, and may follow it up with the person who made the complaint in the first place. I cannot lay down absolute rules, but we have sufficient scope for conducting effective inquiries.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unfortunately, there are still far too many district general hospitals which do not have adequate toilet facilities for patients in wheelchairs and that the parking facilities offered by local authorities — particularly around city hospitals—are inadequate for disabled outpatients?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my ministerial colleagues in the Department will have heard that. The Department of the Environment is now consulting on building regulations directed at that sort of problem in all new public buildings.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In a recent reply I was told that the Minister and his predecessor had looked at 18 cases of discrimination since 11 February. At the last meeting of the all-party disablement group in the House it was reported that The Spastics Society alone was in contact with between 500 and 600 serious cases of discrimination against disabled people. Why is it that The Spastics Society knows of so many cases while the Minister knows of so few?

Mr. Newton: The answer is that The Spastics Society has not passed on details to us or asked us to look into the matter.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Wareing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to combat discrimination against disabled people; and what has been the cost of the measures taken to date.

Mr. Newton: The main thrust of Government policy is to promote the integration of disabled people, and in that way to help overcome the obstacles they often face. I recently placed a lengthy list of the Government's activities in this field in the Library of the House following my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) on 18 November. It is not possible to identify the cost of all the Government's activities relating to this.

Mr. Wareing: Given the Government's now stated objection to legislation which would outlaw discrimination against the disabled, will the Minister promise that there will be a programme of education and persuasion of the general public on the need to avoid such discrimination? Will he ensure that it is much more cost-effective than previous Government campaigns, such as the very expensive propaganda campaign to persuade people to wear seat belts when in the front seats of cars?

Mr. Newton: I hope that I made it plain during the debate on the hon. Gentleman's Bill that I am suspicious of generalised undertakings. The Government will continue to press ahead with what they are doing with regard to social security benefits, access, transport, employment and education, and to deal with specific practical problems which affect specific disabled people. We are making significant progress that goes far beyond any generalised undertakings that I could give to the House.

Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after Question Time, as to deal with them now would lessen the time available for Questions.

Mr. Cowans: It is a real point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after Question Time.

Mr. Boyes: During the debate on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) I suggested that deaf people were also discriminated against because there were too few programmes on television which used CEEFAX and other means of putting words on the screen, although the deaf still paid a full licence fee. I asked the Minister to look into that. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is looking into it, and what progress has been made?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a progress report now, but I shall certainly look into that. Although we would all like to see more being done, the extent to which the television companies, in particular, have developed their ability to add subtitles to programmes is very encouraging and is greatly welcomed by the deaf.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Leaving aside the Minister's implied criticism of The Spastics Society, he says that he

is more interested in a campaign of education and publicity in this area than in legislation. How much is he prepared to spend on education and publicity? When shall we see the colour of his money?

Mr. Newton: I made no criticism, implied or explicit, of The Spastics Society. I simply stated the fact that we had so far received—the number has gone up by three since the debate—21 complaints of discrimination. One or two of those came from The Spastics Society, but we have certainly not had 500 or 600 complaints from it. As to the colour of my money, I wish to make one simple point. I said in the debate that I thought any money available would be better spent on direct help to disabled people. Since the debate I have announced proposals for a new social security benefit which will put £20 million more into the hands of 20,000 disabled people. That is what I mean by practical and flexible steps.

Wessex Health Region

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his current plans for current and capital allocation, respectively, of moneys to the Wessex health region over the next five years.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Wessex regional health authority will continue to benefit over the next five years from this Government's policy of redistributing revenue resources to regions which have in the past been less well funded or which face high growth in population. Wessex can also expect to receive a higher than average capital allocation per head over the same period.

Sir David Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Do I take it, and may I put it to the people of Wessex, that there is no question of any National Health Service cuts in Wessex?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, my hon. Friend can certainly do that. The growth in revenue in the region since 1979–80, the year that we came to office, has been 8·4 per cent. After making provision for Health Service pay and prices, 1·1 per cent. growth was given to the region in 1983–84. We have no intention of making any cuts in Health Service spending in the area to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Corbett: While the Minister is looking at cuts in Wessex, will he also look al the cuts in the west midlands region?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Corbett: It is nearby.

Mr. Speaker: It is not as near as all that.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further progress is being made by his Department in improving access for the disabled.

Mr. Newton: The Department is funding an independent Access Committee for England which will be based at the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped, a voluntary organisation with great experience in this area. The centre is consulting interested organisations on the precise membership and functions of the committee and expects comments back early in the new year.

Mr. Hannam: I welcome my hon. Friend's setting up of the Access Committee for England. Will he ask the


committee to consider the situation at DHSS offices, where there is often a lack of toilet facilities for the disabled and often access problems as well?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly consider asking the committee to look into the problem. Meanwhile, I assure my hon. Friend that I am looking into it myself. The point was raised with me in relation to one office which I visited recently, and I have asked for inquiries to be made about that. We are anxious to do everything that we can to deal with the problem.

Mr. Carter-Jones: May I ask the Minister to treat this as a matter of great urgency? Is he aware that people not normally classified as disabled could benefit by better access, for example, those with arthritis, pregnant ladies and women wheeling prams? They would all gain. If that is so, and if millions stand to gain, will he intensify his efforts to make access readily available at all public places?

Mr. Newton: We are concerned to move as rapidly as we can. The access committee is only part of that effort. I have referred to what the Department of the Environment is doing on building regulations. The Department of Education and Science will follow that with design guidance for schools. The Home Office is considering a number of points on buildings with which it is concerned, and we have just referred to social security offices. What is needed is a co-ordinated effort, using every weapon that we can find.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend say something about the other part of the problem, which is to get an allowance that can be spent on wheelchairs most suitable to the needs of the disabled people concerned? Is this the committee that will have terms of reference covering that aspect?

Mr. Newton: It is not quite the same committee. I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting letter to me on this matter. As he knows, we have recently announced the establishment of a review of the artificial limb and appliance centres. That is very much the type of point that the review team will want to consider.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How many benefit offices that are used for appeals and tribunals are accessible to disabled people? Moreover, will the Minister take seriously the point that many outpatient departments of hospitals are inaccessible to the disabled?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the figures, but I am conscious of the problem, which we are anxious to remedy.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of persons awaiting urgent in-hospital treatment at the latest available date (a) nationally, and (b) on Merseyside.

Mr. John Patten: On 31 March 1983, 49,123 cases were classified as urgent awaiting admission to National Health Service hospitals in England, and a total of 1,032 such cases in the health districts on Merseyside.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not a scandal and a disgrace, and a commentary on the competence and compassion of the Government, that so many thousands of people in agony

and distress should be waiting for urgent hospital treatment, or dying on the waiting lists, when there are unused new beds and unemployed doctors and nurses as a consequence of the Government's mismanagement of the Health Service?

Mr. Patten: Since 1979 waiting lists have been reducing on Merseyside and nationally. Between 1974 and 1979, waiting lists increased by 52 per cent. on Merseyside. We have been struggling since then to bring the waiting lists down. The hon. Gentleman would have helped that progress if he had intervened with his trade union colleagues and friends on Merseyside during last year's industrial action.

Mrs. Currie: In view of the national waiting list, will my hon. Friend confirm that the most difficult to tackle is the orthopaedic waiting list? In view of the recommendations of the Duthie report, will he undertake to have a close look at the proposed closure of the Bretby orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, which closure is being considered by the southern Derbyshire health authority?

Mr. Patten: The picture varies regionally. I shall examine my hon. Friend's submission.

Mr. Skinner: If, as the Minister says, the number of people on waiting lists is falling, why did he not tell the Prime Minister of that massive advance so that she could use the National Health Service?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has followed an earlier silly question by his hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), with another silly question.

Family Practitioner Services

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans for the family practitioner services.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Proposals for changes in the general ophthalmic services and in the status of FPCs are included in the Health and Social Security Bill now before the House. My right hon. Friend announced on 17 November the planned level of expenditure on the family practitioner services in 1984–85.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Government's determination to improve the cost-effectiveness of the family practitioner services is welcomed? In that regard, is it at least a possibility that the drug-prescribing habits of general practitioners will be audited annually?

Mr. Clarke: We certainly intend to try to improve the drug-prescribing habits of general practitioners. We continue to encourage economy in the quantity of drugs prescribed and a greater use of generic prescribing. I agree that we must continue our efforts, because there is still considerable potential for savings to be made.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for his answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). Does he agree that the lists could be further reduced by a process of directives for doctors when dealing with patients who need drugs?

Mr. Clarke: There has been a steady increase in the number of practitioners and a reduction in list sizes, but


that must be judged as part of an overall policy for general practice, mainly determined by the interests of the patients and the improved service which we want to provide.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my hon. and learned Friend maintain the greatest possible pressure to achieve accountability in the family practitioner service? Does he agree that every time family practitioners overrun what might be called projected expenditure the rest of the Health Service, such as the hospital sector, suffers and we experience problems of the kind facing us today?

Mr. Clarke: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is not so, although some people interpreted the changes in July in that way. What happened in July was that cash limits for all programmes, not just the Health Service, were reduced to bring planned public spending within previously agreed levels. Part of the reason was that at the same time non-cash limited programmes were running ahead of the budgetary estimates. That included the family practitioner services.
On balance, within the Health Service we acquired rather more money than we lost by that process, and overall spending on the Health Service has not been reduced. We are avoiding any fixed relationship. When deciding on spending on one or another part of the Health Service, we must judge the level of spending for both services in the light of economic conditions and the needs of the Health Service.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the Minister come to the assistance of those committees that run deputising services and tell them exactly what he means by "excessive" use? Why is he now so pessimistic about deputising services, compared with when he spoke in Committee in March of this year on health services?

Mr. Clarke: I hope shortly to come forward with our proposals for improving the monitoring of the deputising services. I find it difficult to divine the hon. Gentleman's views from his question, but there is widespread public and parliamentary concern about the way in which the present guidelines are being applied. I believe that there is general acceptance in the medical profession that there is some room for tightening up the deputising services.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that much of the administration of family practitioner services involves routine clerical work and that progress towards computerising patient records has been painfully slow. Will he undertake to speed up that process, because that would have a beneficial effect on expenditure on administration in the family practitioner services?

Mr. Clarke: We have engaged the consultants Arthur Andersen and Co. as advisors on improving methods of administering all the family practitioner services. We have asked the consultants to look especially at the way in which we can speed up the application of computerisation and modern office techniques. I take my hon. Friend's point. It is important that we act promptly once the report from Arthur Andersen and Co. is at hand.

Mr. Meacher: On what grounds does the Secretary of State justify arrogating to himself in the Health and Social Security Bill the right to appoint all the members of each of the 90 family practitioner committees? Is he not content with sacking all the non-compliant chairmen of the regional and district health authorities and packing the

membership of those bodies with his own placemen? Is it not a monstrous perversion of patronage that he should reserve to himself the power to hand-pick all of those 2,700 appointees so that he can steamroller through his policies and blot out further resistance?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has as ready a source of adjectives as of bogus statistics, but he is getting overexcited about a fairly simple change. The Secretary of State must represent the public interest and cannot just accept nominees. It is important that the family practitioner committees, which dispose of enormous sums of money, should be answerable to the House, amongst other places, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It is untrue to suggest that we have changed the leadership of any health authorities on party political grounds. I could cite regional and district chairmen who are or have been active members of the Labour party. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's belief that patronage exists, we are appointing the right people to run the services efficiently.

Seat Belts

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the savings to the National Health Service which have resulted from the reduction in injuries since the wearing of seat belts was made compulsory.

Mr. John Patten: We do not yet have the information needed for a reliable estimate, but I welcome the reduction in deaths and serious injuries which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, reported in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 5 December.

Mr. Deakins: Do not the trends that the Under-Secretary has given show the importance of the Government spending money on the prevention of disease and injury, as that affects the National Health Service? In those circumstances, is it not unfortunate that, because of the many cuts in the Health Service, including those in my area of Waltham Forest, there is a serious danger of a disproportionate and adverse effect on the preventive services?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept that. We have shown our interest in prevention by, for example, increasing the sums of money made available to the Health Education Council. It is not doubted that the introduction of seat belt legislation has led to a reduction in deaths and injuries. We shall not know most of the full picture until next summer when we shall have the results of a report headed by the distinguished consultant, Mr. W. H. Rutherford of the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, which will bring together the experiences of 15 different accident and emergency services in the year before and the year after the introduction of the legislation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Are the Government taking any action on the other half of the problem—the continued fitting in new cars of toughened rather than laminated windscreens, which is what people's heads go through if they come out of their seat belts? Or is that being left entirely to the Department of Transport?

Mr. Patten: That is indeed a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Dubs: Although the trend in the figures is encouraging, does the Minister agree that there is still a need for publicity to reinforce the law, especially in relation to the all too frequent practice of front seat passengers wearing seat belts but carrying small children or babies who are not protected?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, although it is heartening to note from police reports that between 95 and 96 per cent. of all front seat passengers wear seat belts regularly.

NHS (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the percentage in 1978.

Mr. Fowler: The most recent year for which figures are available is 1982, when 5·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service. That compares with 4·8 per cent. in 1978.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show clearly the higher priority given to the National Health Service by the Conservatives than by the Labour Government?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, they show exactly that. They show that we are spending more on the National Health Service than any other Government in history, and also treating more patients.

Mr. Pavitt: How does the Secretary of State reconcile the success stories with which he continually regales the House with the facts that we all know from our own areas? Is he aware that the North-West Thames health authority is seeking fully or partially to close 30 hospitals, including the House of Commons hospital—Westminster hospital? Is he further aware that £1·2 million allocated to the Central Middlesex hospital in my area nine months ago has been stopped, with the result that the hospital is now taking only emergency cases for acute beds? How does the Minister reconcile the success that he claims with the terrible impact of his cuts on patient care?

Mr. Fowler: Any closure proposals by the North-West Thames authority would have to come to Ministers. Nothing in any strategic document could possibly alter that. As for the figures, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary fairness, will acknowledge that the Government have increased spending on the Health Service and that spending is now 17 per cent. higher than the level that we inherited in 1978–79.

Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome the increased spending on the Health Service, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit would be greater if more hospitals followed the example of the Hinchingbrooke hospital, which serves my constituents, in privatising cleaning services, thus saving £200,000 per year, which can then be spent on essential medical services?

Mr. Fowler: As I said in answer to an earlier question, we favour the policy of contracting out and competitive tendering because we believe that it will make the Health Service more effective.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State accept that health spending has increased as a proportion of GDP because GDP itself has decreased? Does he agree that health spending in this country still represents a lower proportion of GDP than in most other developed countries and that, despite all the Government's statistical waffle, throughout the entire country — including the areas represented by Ministers—hospitals and wards are being closed, new hospitals are left empty and nurses and doctors are unemployed?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman's assumption about GDP is just plain wrong. Between 1978 and 1982 GDP rose by 0·4 per cent. while the NHS share rose by 0·6 per cent. Health spending by virtually all European countries is between 5 and 6 per cent. of public spending. The proportion of GDP is increased by private spending on health in those countries. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was foremost among the opponents of private health spending.

Death Grant

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a statement on the level of death grant.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that his answer will condemn thousands of elderly people who are worried about burial costs to yet another Christmas of apprehension? Is it not a disgrace that the period for consultation on the Government's document ended 18 months ago, in July 1982? When may we expect an answer to the representations that have been made?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member will get an answer as soon as possible. It is important to get a scheme whereby the money that is available — because vast sums of additional money are not available—can be used to help the families that need it to cover their funeral expenses.

Mr. McCrindle: Can my hon. Friend confirm, before the statement is made, that the Government are at least considering moving in the direction often recommended whereby, in return for those of us who do not need the £30 death grant sacrificing it, we have a rising scale payable on the basis of need?

Dr. Boyson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The suggestions that were put up some 18 months ago were exactly along the lines referred to by my hon. Friend—a grant of £250, £200 or £150 to people on supplementary benefit, FIS or war pensioners. It is from something along those lines that the solution is likely to come.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister renew the pledge of his predecessor and seek the agreement of the Opposition before introducing any change to the benefit?

Dr. Boyson: I was not aware that my predecessor made that pledge, but if he did, that pledge will be fulfilled.

General Managers

Mr. Maude: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the system of general managers at authority and unit level recommended in the Griffiths report to be established.

Mr. Fowler: I have written to Health Service chairmen asking for views by 9 January on the implementation of this and other recommendations. I will issue guidance to authorities when I have considered their response.

Mr. Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety about the lessening degree of managerial efficiency in the Health Service, as is very well evidenced in the pamphlet produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell)? Will he ensure that steps are taken as soon as possible to increase efficiency so that resources in the Health Service are used where they are most needed?

Mr. Fowler: I must confess that I do not agree with all the suggestions put forward in the pamphlet to which my hon. Friend refers. However, where we clearly do agree is that the management process in the Health Service must be improved, and that is what the Griffiths report is all about.

Mrs. Renée Short: Where does the right hon. Gentleman expect this new layer of management to come from? Will it be from the hospital administrators, who are already receiving redundancy pay?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is wrong. It is not a new layer of management. The people who will become the general managers at district or regional level will probably be drawn in the main from the officers who are already employed.

NHS (Productivity)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any targets for productivity in the National Health Service.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Increases in productivity, to make the most of past and planned increases in resources, are a central part of Government policy towards the NHS. We have not set a national target figure, but specific objectives for individual authorities are set through annual accountability reviews. Those agreed by Ministers with regional health authorities are recorded in the regional action plans, of which copies are placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. and learned Friend explain why it is that, at a time of large increases in productivity within the wealth-producing sector of the economy, the number of people employed by the Health Service over the past 20 years has gone up by 750,000 and the number of people required to service one hospital bed has trebled? Can my hon. and learned Friend say what the Government will do, and do urgently, to stop the country from sweeping money into a hole in the ground known as the Health Service?

Mr. Clarke: With respect to my hon. Friend, the Health Service is a person-to-person service, so that when one improves the service one inevitably increases the numbers of some employees. It is also the case that we look not at staff per bed but at staff per patient. As we increase the use to which beds are put, more patients are treated by fewer staff even though this is not reflected in the number of beds. Having said that, I accept my hon. Friend's point that much more could be done to improve the efficiency with which manpower is used in the National Health Service. Our first modest steps towards

this end attracted some controversy earlier this year, but I think it is essential that we press on in that direction if the patient is to get the full benefit from the extra resources the Government are putting in.

NHS (Recruitment Advertising)

Mr. Fallon: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now reduce the costs of National Health Service recruitment advertising.

Mr. John Patten: We are currently considering the report of a Rayner style scrutiny of NHS recruitment advertising, which suggests various possibilities for reducing expenditure.

Mr. Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent edition of the Nursing Times contained more than 56 pages of NHS advertising for 500 or 600 vacancies? Is there not a cheaper way of circulating these vacancies than providing a public subsidy for a commercial paper?

Mr. Patten: Health authorities subsidise some of these journals to the tune of £7 million a year. That sum must be scrutinised closely to make sure that we are getting the best value for money, and that is what we are doing.

Deputising Services

Mr. Galley asked: the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make improvements to the working of deputising services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Deputising services are not part of the NHS and family doctors may employ their services only with the consent of the family practitioner committee, which is advised on the professional and ethical aspects of services by professional advisory committees. I am considering ways of strengthening existing arrangements and shall shortly be issuing revised guidance for consultation.

Mr. Galley: Will my hon. and learned Friend indicate what response he received to his letter of July to family practitioner committees? Has he extended those consultations to community health councils?

Mr. Clarke: The response to my letter to family practitioner committees confirmed the response from members of the public and hon. Members of this House and satisfied us that something needed to be done to improve the monitoring procedures and to re-write and improve the guidance. I hope to make an announcement shortly. We have included community health councils, and they too have urged on us the need to improve present arrangements.

Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order now because he has alerted me to the fact that it is highly urgent. I shall allow injury time for Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Cowans: My point of order is vitally important to every hon. Member of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I am not raising a political issue. We are informed by the annunciator that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement this afternoon on the Government's regional economic policy.
At 2.46 this afternoon I went to the Vote Office—as any hon. Member wanting to keep himself informed would


—to ask for a copy of that statement. I was informed that it was lying on the shelf, presumably gathering dust, and that it could not be given to hon. Members so that we might read it, fully to appreciate the comments that the Secretary of State will make.
I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker, because these papers should be available so that we may ask questions when the Secretary of State makes a statement. Or does the right hon. Gentleman not want us to know what is in it? [Interruption.] Is that the purpose behind it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that statements by Ministers are never circulated to Back Benchers.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Why not?

Mr. Cowans: I am talking about the White Paper, Mr. Speaker. Why is that not available?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Why not is not a matter for me. Statements are not circulated. I understand that they go to the Front Bench spokesmen concerned but not to Back Benchers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Eggar: Does not the news that the NGA is to picket again at Warrington challenge the whole basis of our democratic values? Surely all of us in this House have the right and duty to protect employees' decisions as to whether they should join a closed shop. If we do not do that we shall see our democracy undermined.

The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain whether the NGA has decided to picket again, but I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that the employees at the Warrington Messenger Group have exercised their right by ballot to reject a closed shop. They must be protected in the exercise of that right, and this dispute is about the NGA attempting to intimidate them to make them, nevertheless, join a closed shop. That is totally and utterly wrong and the law must be seen to protect those employees.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now welcome the decision of the NGA to suspend its strike? Will she use the pause that that has now made available to exercise her powers to bring the various parties together to produce a settlement? Will she, for instance, ask ACAS to convene a committee of inquiry?

The Prime Minister: No. ACAS was set up by the Labour Government. It is there to conciliate. That is its job and it is not for the Government to intervene.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that if others such as ACAS are effectively prohibited from exercising their function of conciliation by the straitjacket legislation that lies at the source of this conflict, she has a direct and absolute responsibility to accept that the buck

stops with her? She should exercise her power. If she will not do so, will she give way to allow others to get power so that they can fulfil that responsibility?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman makes it clear that what the Opposition really want is for the Government to force Mr. Shah to give in to the union's unreasonable demands. That we shall not do. On the Government side we shall uphold the right of employees to reject a closed shop—a right given to them by the law.

Mr. Kinnock: What the Opposition want is the resolution of a dispute that has been turned by Government legislation from a local problem into an industrial volcano. That is the direct responsibility of the Government. The Opposition and the country want the Government to fulfil their responsibilities to end this dispute now.

The Prime Minister: What I believe the people want, and what I believe they voted for, is for the law to uphold the right of employees to reject a closed shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman condemn the NGA for contravening the law? Will he uphold the right of the individual to reject the closed shop?

Mr. Kinnock: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has had three opportunities to put his case.

Mr. Kinnock: May I have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker? I am fed up with a Prime Minister who has power trying to dodge it by trying to award obligations to me — dodging all the time. I have no intention of condoning breaks of the law and no intention of being a drill sergeant for divisive and ruinous Tory legislation, either.

The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn intimidation of employees and companies?

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady should do the job for which she is paid.

The Prime Minister: Will he wholly and utterly condemn it and therefore uphold their rights to reject the closed shop?

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Prime Minister undertake to read last week's report by an anonymous group of Welsh HMIs entitled "Home School Links"? If she considers that this report is fatuous, complacent, lacking in substantiated detail and academic rigour, and that it fails to give any guidance to parents on the crucial issues of glue sniffing, under-age drinking and smoking, will she ensure that in future these HMIs are more suitably and sensibly employed?

The Prime Minister: I believe that Her Majesty's inspectorate does a very good job and that its work is almost universally welcome. The Government will be making a statement later on glue sniffing. We are watching the Scottish case carefully.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report in today's newspapers that the Government propose to send a British astronaut into space? Will she confirm or deny that?

The Prime Minister: I know nothing about such a report. It is not true, but there are certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom I should not minding sending there.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister accept my sincerity when I say that I deprecate the events that led to the premature closure of a Brent council meeting last week? At the same time, will she consider those events less emotionally today? Is she aware that I attended that meeting and that there was no "Rentamob"? There were 300 people present, many of whom I have served as Member of Parliament for 24 years, and many of whom came from the local Methodist church, pensioners' associations and others. Will the Prime Minister accept also that it was an offensive break from democratic practices in an area where I canvassed for Mrs. Neil, because I was known and she was not? There have been 1,100 local voters, including Conservatives, who have asked Mrs. Neil to resign. The Prime Minister talked about gagging procedures last week, but the gagging procedures in Brent were no worse than when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) had the payroll vote used against him in gagging procedures here.

The Prime Minister: It is strange that the power was not transferred peaceably from Labour to Tory-Liberal control. It was not. I do not know whether it was "Rentamob", but the reports were of a mob preventing the peaceful transfer.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite Mr. Len Murray's advice, it is gross intimidation of innocent workers for Mr. Colin Barnet, the north-west region general secretary of the TUC, to promise that tomorrow's demonstration will be the largest that Warrington has ever seen?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there is to be a demonstration tomorrow, but that it will be away from the place of work. There is a right of peaceful demonstration. If there is a demonstration I trust that it will be peaceful. I am certain that the police will do everything to protect the right of ordinary workers to go about their ordinary business peacefully and without hindrance.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister give a general welcome to the report on Northern Ireland published this morning by the European Parliament by Mr. Haagerup? Will she pursue the suggestion that the Government have been considering, namely, a parliamentary forum in which Members of the House, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail will discuss Northern Ireland problems?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I take the view that the European Assembly has no business to discuss the internal political affairs of a member state. That is the view we took at the outset and to which we adhere, and to which I believe every state of the European Community must continue to adhere. An Anglo-Irish parliamentary body is a matter for the parliaments concerned and not for the Government.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister reflect today—it is an appropriate time for her do do so—on the divided society that her Government have created. It is one in which the poor have become poorer, the rich have become richer, employee has been set against employer, and the sick are not recieving the attention that they could reasonably expect from a civilised society. Having done that, will she re-read the words from St. Francis which she uttered to the nation in 1979, and having read them, decide that it is time for her to go?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the hon. Gentleman may I point out that in the latest dispute it is the employees who are backing up the employer, not the other way round? With regard to many other aspects of society, we have over 60 per cent. owner-occupation—opportunities that would never have been given under Labour. With regard to the National Health Service, the amount spent on it each and every year has continued to increase. The Labour party in two years reduced the amount spent on the National Health Service. Further, the pension is at its highest ever level.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In the course of her busy day has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read further reports about the demonstration at RAF Greenham common on Sunday? Is she aware that 1,257 policemen had to be on duty that day from eight forces, that the cost of policing was £250,000, that 30 policemen sustained injuries and that 60 people were arrested? Despite the violence, and the huge cost of policing, which I hope my right hon. Friend will agree belongs perhaps more to a national charge than to a local one, is she aware that we in west Berkshire are determined that Greenham shall fulfil its role as a NATO defence establishment?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the demonstration we witnessed there on television the other day will only have strengthened people's view that we must keep our defences in this country. We will not allow that kind of demonstration, far from peaceable, with many policemen injured, and, at one stage, barbed wire used to scar the side of a horse, to intimidate us. Indeed, it will strengthen us in standing for everything that we believe in, which is the upholding of the rule of law and freedom in this country.
With regard to cost, we have considerable sympathy with Thames Valley police about the extra cost; 60 per cent. is actually borne by the Government. Nevertheless, Thames valley police are having to bear substantial costs for reasons through no fault of theirs. They are doing an excellent job and we shall consider whether there is any extra contribution that we can make.

Mr. Soley: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of my constituents have received no post for nearly two weeks, that they will probably receive no Christmas mail at all, let alone any serious and important letters such as pension books, business orders, hospital appointments and so on, largely because the Post Office has refused to accept arbitration from ACAS? Will she use her influence to get the Post Office to go to ACAS, as the trade union has agreed? Or is it the intention of her Government to underplay the role of ACAS so that she can continue her war against the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: There is a recognised procedure for conciliation. It is essential that that procedure is followed and the Government will not intervene.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the action by the TUC leadership to discourage the National Graphical Association from proceeding with its strike is not only most welcome but shows a concern for NGA members which the NGA itself has not shown, and a respect for the law? Does she further agree that in this respect the TUC general secretary is setting an example which the Leader of the Opposition would do well to emulate?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The TUC believes in upholding the law. That is right in a democracy. The law is absolutely indivisible. People cannot choose which parts of it they uphold and which parts they flout. It must all be upheld. I believe the TUC has made that clear in the stand it has taken.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to study the words of Mr. McNamara on a television programme last Saturday night, when he said that there were no military justifications for cruise missiles, only political ones? In the light of this, will she now reconsider whether cruise missiles are necessary?

The Prime Minister: No. We watched the Soviet Union deploy many, many warheads, some 800 or 900 SS20 warheads. We asked the Soviet Union to take them down. We negotiated with it for nearly four years, asking it to take them down. In the absence of the Soviet Union going to zero option, we must put our own deterrent in place. We have done so and we shall continue with the programme of deploying cruise and Pershing missiles to protect the people of this country.

Cruise Missiles (Greenham Common)

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement later backed up by the Government during questions, to the effect that Members of Parliament and others would not be allowed inside the Greenham common camp to visit the installations. As Olga Maitland got inside the camp last week, would it be in order for the Secretary of State to make a statement on why Members of Parliament and others are not allowed to view the installations when she is allowed inside the camp?

Mr. Speaker: I am absolutely certain that that has nothing to do with me.

Regional Industrial Policy (White Paper)

Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You earlier responded to a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). You may have had difficulty hearing him, but he wanted to know why hon. Members were denied copies of the White Paper on regional industrial development — not the Secretary of State's statement. Do you now feel it appropriate to advise Back Benchers that they are entitled to copies of the White Paper on the same basis and at the same time as other persons in the House who are not hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) if I misheard his point of order——

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions there have been long debates and numerous points of order on the availability of literature to hon. Members that is freely available in the Press Gallery. There are times when hon. Members demand the right to see such papers and to study the information available to prepare themselves for debate, but that does not always happen. May I ask for a general inquiry to be made into this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know of my strong opinion that Back Benchers should have as much information as possible, but the Secretary of State wishes to say something about this.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today we have followed the same practice that has been followed for many years by successive Governments. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office and will be made available when I am called to make the statement to which the White Paper relates.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Bowen Wells: It is a related point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not too related.

Mr. Bowen Wells: First, Mr. Speaker, I apologise to you and the House for uttering the words, "Why not?" when you were on your feet just now. I submit that to you in true humility.
Secondly, I ask you to use your influence on Ministers to make certain that papers available to the press are also available to hon. Members on both sides of the House before a statement is made, otherwise it is a gross abuse of the democratic rights of the House.

Hospital Cleaning Services

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that during a supplementary question to question No. 11, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) suggested that it might be desirable to extend the privatisation of hospital cleaning services. It is well known that the hon. Gentleman has a direct private vested interest in these matters.
I understand that under the convention of the House hon. Members do not declare such interests during supplementary questions or, indeed, during Question Time, but, in view of likely continued abuse in this regard, will you consider urging hon. Members who ask supplementary questions to declare their private interests?

Sir Anthony Grant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the assumption that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is referring to me, may I remind him that if he had been present to hear me speak in the House over some years he would have heard me declare my interest and say that it is declared in the Register of Members Interests.

Regional Industrial Policy

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): rose——

Mr. Harry Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important matter. Would you accept a motion that the House should adjourn for five minutes so that hon. Members can be as well equipped as the press to deal with the statement about to be made by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker: Before we become too excited about the matter, I remind the House that we have already heard what the Secretary of State has to say. It appears to be a long-standing practice, and I think that we should now proceed.

Mr. Tebbit: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's review of regional economic policy. I have today laid before the House a White Paper entitled "Regional Industrial Development", and my Department will publish shortly a factual background paper on the effectiveness of regional policy and other regional issues. The Government remain firmly committed to an effective regional policy. Although the economic case for regional industrial policy today is not clear cut——

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Oh!

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he may find out what I mean, if he is able to absorb it. —[Interruption.].

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has barely started.

Mr. Tebbit: Although the economic case for regional industrial policy today is not clear cut, and the economic costs of such policies must be set against the benefits, there remains a social case for regional industrial policy to reduce regional imbalances in employment opportunities.

Mr. Heffer: You can say that again.

Mr. Tebbit: I will say it again, if the hon. Gentleman tempts me.
The Government believe that there is scope to increase the effectiveness of regional policy and to achieve better value for money in the regions, with less adverse effects on the economy as a whole.
The White Paper sets out a new structure for regional industrial incentives, involving major changes to the regional development grants scheme. At present, RDGs overconcentrate on capital intensive projects and manufacturing industries. In future, we propose that they should be aimed more precisely at job creation. The new RDG scheme will be widened in scope to cover parts of the service sector, in addition to manufacturing. However, RDG will be payable only towards projects that provide, or modernise, capacity. Simple replacement investment will not qualify for RDG.
Grant will be payable as a proportion of capital expenditure, or as an amount for each new job created by a project, whichever is more advantageous to the investor. However, where grant is paid in respect of capital

expenditure, it will be limited by a cost-per-job ceiling. For the sake of simplicity, small firms will be exempt from that limit.
These changes shift the payment of automatic grant assistance to projects that create jobs. In addition, the importance of selective assistance relative to RDGs will be increased. Relocation projects that offer no net increase in jobs will not normally be eligible for regional selective assistance.
Industry attaches great importance to the automatic and predictable nature of the RDG scheme. Therefore, grant will continue to be paid at standard rates, and by reference to published criteria. To avoid disruption or uncertainty arising from these changes, there will be a 12-month transition period from the introduction of the scheme before they take full effect. For projects that have already been offered selective assistance, RDG will continue to be paid under the old rules, not the new. The old rules, not the new, will apply for projects for which application has already been made, or is made before 31 January 1984, provided that an offer is made before changes to the legislation are brought into effect.
The regional investment role of the British Technology Group—which does not relate to its primary task of encouraging the transfer of technology — will be discontinued.
The White Paper invites views on number of issues: in respect of grant, which activities should qualify for RDG, what the rates of grant should be, and what the balance should be between automatic and selective assistance. On the assisted area map, views are invited on both the criteria for designation and on map coverage. The Government also welcome views on whether special measures should be taken in the assisted areas to encourage innovation and new firm formation. I would welcome written submissions before the end of May 1984 in order that they may be considered before decisions are reached.
Consultation has its price. A number of important decisions about regional policy will remain to be taken until after the consultation period. In particular, it is not possible now to announce the future geographical coverage of regional assistance or the amount of future regional expenditure. So far as coverage is concerned, the new map, when it is published, will be based upon more up-to-date data concerning travel-to-work areas now becoming available from the 1981 census returns.
The Government will introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for the new scheme of RDGs outlined in the White Paper. Once the consultation process is complete, and the remaining decisions taken, the Government propose to lay the necessary orders, implementing all the changes simultaneously in autumn 1984.
In short, the new policy will ease the present unjustified bias against service industries, it will end the unjustified payment of expensive aid to projects that create few jobs in the assisted areas, it will minimise mere job shifting at taxpayers' expense and it will concentrate on better value for money in job creation in the areas of greatest need.
I am confident that the new framework will provide a firm basis for a more cost-effective regional industrial policy, benefiting the assisted areas more effectively with less adverse effects elsewhere.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State will be aware that it is nearly four and


a half years since his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when he was Secretary of State for Industry, made a major statement on Government regional policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is not one region or sub-region in the whole of Britain where unemployment problems have not either trebled or doubled since his right hon. Friend made that statement? Is he aware that in July 1979, when his right hon. Friend last spoke, the worst unemployment in Britain, in the northern region, was about 8 per cent., but now in the region where there is least unemployment, the south-east, the figure is well over 9 per cent?
Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that there can be no solution to the problem of regional unemployment and decline unless and until there is a major change in Government national economic policy? Within the framework of a changed national economic policy, the case today for a strong regional policy is greater than it has ever been. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore assure us that, whatever changes emerge from the consideration and consultations on which he is about to embark, the level of regional assistance will not be reduced?
We shall consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement and the White Paper about changes in regional development grants. It is odd that the factual background paper that the right hon. Gentleman referred to at the beginning of his statement, which is about the effectiveness of regional policy and other regional issues, is not available now. I assume that it is precisely on the basis of that factual background paper that his proposals for making changes in regional development grant find whatever support there may be for them, which encouraged him to make his statement. There are many questions that we shall need to ask, but now I shall confine myself to four.
First, what value does the Secretary of State put on regional development agencies such as those which Scotland and Wales have most successfully used in the past few years? Does he intend to extend or have any proposals to extend them to regions in England where there is undoubtedly a great need, as unemployment is at a similar level?
Secondly, what part does the Secretary of State envisage local government playing in regional development, especially through local government enterprise boards? Thirdly, what thought has he given to the regional pattern of public expenditure? I refer to roads, railways, water supply and a range of other forms of public infrastructure, expenditure on which has a major impact on the prosperity of regions. Fourthly, does he intend to integrate major urban development and inner city policies with development aid policies? Does he intend to retain the existing structure of assisted areas, intermediate areas, development areas and special development areas?
The Secretary of State has come a little way since he expressed his philosophy about the regions in that famous phrase in which he advised people to "get on their bikes." The reality of his policy will be judged when we have studied carefully and debated, as I hope we shall have an early opportunity to do, the statement and the White Paper.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall try to respond to all of the right hon. Gentleman's points. First, of course I can confirm

that, like other countries which experience a world-wide recession, we have had increased unemployment in the past four years. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman knew the answer to that question.
The right hon. Gentleman was entirely right to imply that the best form of aid for regional economies is a healthy national economy. That is precisely why we intend that the new regional policy should be more effective than that which we have used until now and that it should operate at a lower cost to help the progress of the national economy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the background paper. I hope that it will be available shortly.

Mr. Heffer: How many jobs will that mean?

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman wants a job, I suggest that he goes and finds something constructive to do rather than just sit there yacking.

Mr. Heffer: How many jobs will that mean on Merseyside?

Mr. Tebbit: It would hardly have been sensible to publish all of the material that the Government have been considering recently.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we intend to introduce to England agencies on the Scottish or Welsh model. The answer is no.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what part local government would play. Its prime role is to keep down its expenditure and rate demands on businesses and to stop taxing businesses out of existence.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the regional pattern of expenditure is not the subject of the White Paper. We hope that inner city policies will become more closely aligned with our other economic policies, but the most important thing to remember is that industrial regeneration is seldom started in the inner cities where urban aid is being used most. The prime purpose of urban policy is to restore the environment so that it is more attractive to business and residents.
We would welcome observations on the three tiers of aid structure from those who take part in the consultative process.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of our right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome a general debate on regional aid? Does he also agree that in many cases regional aid has not be as effective as it would have been had industrial aid been given throughout the country?
I am delighted as, I am sure, are most hon. Members that emphasis has been placed on the service industries as they are more labour-intensive than manufacturing industry. Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that, whereas we give 100 per cent. grants to manufacturing industry, the same amount of fiscal aid is not given to the service industries? Is it not high time our service industries enjoyed the same amount of capital assistance and tax allowances as manufacturing industry?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is correct. We were wrong to have discriminated in our regional economic policies against the service industries. Of course, not all service industries will qualify for regional grants. [Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition thinks about it, there would be singularly little point, for


example, in subsidising new greengrocers to come into an area in which there was already an adequate number of them. On the other hand, there would be good reason to assist, through regional policy, the setting up, for example, of software industry houses as a service industry in the assisted areas.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen carefully to all that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) said about the tax structure relating to manufacturing and service industries.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that from 1977, when the Labour Government conducted a review of regional policy, Scotland's share of regional aid has declined by 40 per cent. in real terms? Although the right hon. Gentleman has not come to any specific decisions, there must be considerable worry underneath that cloak that Scotland will lose out. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical reply to assure the Scottish people that in no circumstances will Scotland's share of regional aid be further reduced?

Mr. Tebbit: I could not possibly give an undertaking that anybody's share of aid would not decline further. It depends on the economic circumstances of the region. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Scotland has benefited enormously from the oil industry in recent years, which has eased its problems relative to those in many other parts of the country.

Sir Hector Monro: Has my right hon. Friend considered the relationship between European aid grants and regional policy? Is he aware that in my constituency, which is probably the most afforested in the United Kingdom, forestry infrastructure grants are not available because it is not an assisted area? Is that logical?

Mr. Tebbit: The logic of the policy is that European regional aid is available in areas designated as assisted areas in this country. Such a policy seems to have a certain logic to me, as I think it probably will when my hon. Friend reflects upon it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Secretary of State aware that his remarks will be tested against the results that will be produced by the White Paper? Is he further aware that he had better be careful about manufacturing industry because in Tameside, which I represent, one quarter of manufacturing jobs were lost and more than 20 per cent. of the firms closed in the first two years of the previous Conservative Administration? We are dealing with a serious matter, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the problems of manufacturing industry when he makes his final decisions.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will also accept that, in all probability, there is a long-term trend towards a reduction of jobs in manufacturing industries because of technical change.
Equally, it seems that employment in the service sector will expand. To have a regional policy which acts only to assist manufacturing industries and not service industries is perverse.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that instead of continuing to put public

money into declining areas that private enterprise has left, in an attempt to reverse market forces, we should put the money where there is growth potential? That would he better than losing it in the ailing urban inner city areas.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that my hon. Friend noticed that at the beginning of my statement I said that we should be well aware of the cost of regional policy, and that we should now see it primarily as a social policy that is designed to ease the problems of those areas with the highest unemployment and to do what we can to reverse the imbalances. All social policies have their costs, and this policy has, too.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the progress made by the enterprise zone on Merseyside in regenerating industry and creating jobs? Will he take it from me that small businesses will not resolve the problem of mass unemployment on Merseyside? About 100,000 jobs have been lost on Merseyside, and they will not be mopped up by small businesses, or by tinkering with the economy.

Mr. Tebbit: I must agree with the hon. Gentleman in that, while the local authority in Liverpool behaves as it does, hardly any regional policy will solve Liverpool's problems.

Mr. Jim Lester: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement is most welcome and timely? It represents a far more intelligent basis for Government involvement in regional policy, provided that the net funds available do not differ from the practice of perhaps the past six years? Hon. Members will be aware that the net funds will greatly help job-related schemes, and will reduce the budget of the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Tebbit: The more people that we can get into work the more the problems of the budget of the DHSS are eased. If we can eliminate the excessive costs, particularly of some of the very capital intensive projects that have generated very few jobs, it will help to control costs. If we sharpen all the instruments needed, we can achieve our objectives at a lower cost. If we can do that, and so borrow and tax less, there will be a bonus for everybody, and not least for the unemployed.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I welcome many aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and particularly the element that relates to an increased emphasis on job creation, as well as the extension of the system into the service sector. Indeed, I also welcome the White Paper, which this time gives us sufficient time to consult properly. However, the Secretary of State declined to give a commitment about the size of regional aid in each region. Will he then give a commitment about the global budget, and confirm that the Government do not wish the global resources that have been put into the support system to be diminished?
In the last major review, many rural areas with high unemployment were taken out the system and were removed from access to EEC grants. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that rural areas with high unemployment will be more sympathetically considered when the new map is drawn?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure in what way the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw a distinction between expenditure on regional economic policy and what he


called "global" support. I should make it absolutely plain that I expect the total cost of our regional economic policy to be lower in future than it has been in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That is the second time that I have said that, so I do not see why Opposition Members should be surprised. Like all other areas, rural areas will fall to be considered for inclusion or exclusion as the new map is drawn up, and in the light of our consultations.

Sir Peter Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us in the south-west are very glad that he is continuing the regional aid policy? From experience, we know that it has been of tremendous benefit. Is he further aware that we welcome the extension into the service industry? Will he make it clear that he will hold the widest consultations about what needs to be done, as experience on the ground in the remoter areas can greatly help?

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course we want to consult widely, and that is why we shall receive comments until May. I understand, of course, that the regional policy is welcomed in the south-west. That is not surprising, as it is a beneficiary in cash terms. Of course those who are not beneficiaries but who are primarily financers of the policy—that is, those in the non-assisted areas—may look at the policy with a slightly more jaundiced eye, but I am sure that they will accept that there is a cost to every social policy.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Secretary of State aware that if he had met the deputation from Tameside council today, which he cancelled in view of his statement, he would have heard a very powerful case being made for assisted area status? He would have heard that unemployment in Tameside is as high as in the west midlands, that one in four children is in receipt of free school meals, and that one in four householders is in receipt of rent or rate rebates. As the Government have described Tameside as the most deprived area outside London not to be in receipt of assisted area status, what comfort will his statement give the people of Tameside?

Mr. Tebbit: The comfort that my statement should give to the people of Tameside is that, if they find themselves eventual beneficiaries of the policy, by being included within the area of coverage, they will find it more finely tuned to job creation than the previous policy. If, on the other hand, they still find themselves outside the area, they will at least have the consolation of knowing that the whole policy is being operated at a lower cost, and thus at a lower cost to them as well. Like most people, they stand to gain either way.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on a previous occasion his hon. Friend the Minister assured us that, when the review was undertaken, all Departments would be considered, and that it would not simply be a matter of that part of regional policy which was on his vote? That is particularly important in respect of inner city policy, for example, where patches of aid lead to great local dislocation. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that all Departments have participated in the review, and that the Government are prepared to consider a regional policy across the whole range of activities, rather than a policy that is confined simply to the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Tebbit: I think that I can best answer my hon. Friend by being short. Yes.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: Is the Secretary of State aware that for many years all responsible opinion in the north of England has recognised the need for a development agency? Did that view play any part in his consideration of the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us are suspicious when he talks about getting value for money, because that term, when it comes from this Government, is synonymous with a cost — cutting exercise, which would lead to fewer jobs not more?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the extent to which regional policy in the past has been a policy of moving jobs from one part of the kingdom to another rather than of creating a net additional number of jobs. Of course the methods that we have used through regional policy to attract inward investment have undoubtedly brought about a net increase in jobs. But I doubt whether many people today, particularly those who belong to the body which the hon. Gentleman calls "responsible opinion", believe any longer that jobs are created by public expenditure. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr Callaghan), gave up that proposition a long time ago when he was in office.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate that the statement covers virtually every constituency. I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible, and so I propose to allow questions to continue until 4.30 pm. I hope, however, that that will contribute to shorter supplementary questions.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I welcome many of the aspects of my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon, may I refer to the comment made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the importance of manufacturing industry, which creates the real wealth of this country? Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention in his package to the needs of the textile and clothing industry, which is the fourth largest employer in this country? It could well be that much funding will be required by that industry merely to maintain its existing work force, if it is to remain competitive, rather than to add to the work force, which seems to be the fundamental basis behind his announcement today.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend will see that the statement is not based on sectoral aid to industry and it is nondiscriminatory between one aspect of manufacturing industry and another. I want it to be less discriminatory between the manufacturing and service industries. It is not immediately obvious to me at any rate that it is necessarily more virtuous or more wealth-producing to manufacture ladies' home-perm sets than to run a ladies' hairdressing salon.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us in Wales will see his statement as a curate's egg. Will not the good parts, such as the extension to the service industry, be diluted to some extent if, as in paragraph 49 of the White Paper, the Government are looking for opportunities to reduce public expenditure? We find it difficult to see how there can be


an extension into all those other new areas if the overall amount of money is to be cut. Will the Government include consideration of the principle of additionality with regard to EC funds to ensure that there are additional benefits for those areas that receive them? In applying his mind to the issue of the relocation of industries, will he appreciate that a company employing 200 people in an area with 30 per cent. unemployment may be of greater benefit overall than one in an area where there is only 4 per cent. unemployment?

Mr. Tebbit: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman should try to convince the 200 people who lose their jobs in the area with 4 per cent. unemployment. They are 100 per cent. unemployed at the time they lose their jobs and they might not think that his point was terribly helpful.
On overall expenditure, if the hon. Gentleman takes the view that one can never get better value for money, he might be right. I take the view that one can get better value for money. The hon. Gentleman will notice when he reads the White Paper that we have put a cost-per-job limit on aid, which is extremely helpful in getting better value for money. We have also excluded from aid mere replacement projects, which again is helpful. There are ways of saving money as well as new ways — for example, in the service industry—of spending it.
On additionality, we have a satisfactory arrangement that is working extremely well.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of decisions taken by Opposition right hon. Members, unemployment in my constituency rose to about 25 per cent. and that, as a result of the policies of the present Government, it has been steadily falling so that it now stands at 18 per cent.? May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be welcomed in my constituency and among my constituents and that the emphasis that he has placed on the social policy in providing jobs will be particularly welcomed?

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course I am well aware of the effects of Government policies—the previous Conservative Government's policies as well as those of the present Government—on employment in Corby in particular. It is not just Government policy that has been helping to bring jobs back to Corby. It is in very large part due to the initiative of all the people of Corby who have shown what can be done by a city or a town which goes out determined to sell itself and the quality of its people. They have brought the jobs back to Corby and they deserve every congratulation on their success.

Mr. Derek Foster: If the Secretary of State believes that there is no economic case for regional policy, is that not because his Government's policies have made the whole country into a development area? Does he appreciate that all the jobs gained under regional policy during the 15 years up to 1979 were wiped out in the first two years of the Government's first term of office? Does he appreciate that people in the northern region will be deeply suspicious of his statement because they will understand that it is a cloak of respectability for spending less money on the regions and for disbanding the regions altogether?

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman checks, he will see that I have said that the case is less clear cut on economic

grounds and that it is now seen as being primarily on social grounds. The hon. Gentleman said that previous gains had been wiped out, but I must remind him that under the Labour Government there was a fair amount of wiping out while unemployment was being doubled. I must also remind the hon. Gentleman that, since 1979, the whole world has been through a severe recession and the extent to which we have suffered more greatly than many others is not least because of the accumulated inefficiencies of British industry and commerce, the excessive rates of taxation which have been imposed, and the excessive rates of inflation which had been caused by the Labour Government's spending policy.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept that in the west midlands, which has the fastest rising rate of unemployment in the country, the lowest wages per head, the lowest output per head and the highest dependence on manufacturing, the welcome for his White Paper will be conditioned by the extent to which it reduces discrimination against the west midlands and help for the modernisation of our industry?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend does not want to maintain jobs in manufacturing industry; he wants to open hairdressing salons instead.

Mr. Tebbit: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I should say that not only do I have no intention of opening a ladies' hairdressing salon but I would be precluded from taking an interest in such an operation while I was a member of the Government.
I fully understand the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). He, like me, will have taken some encouragement from the early signs of the recovery in the west midlands as noted by the unemployment figures which were issued in the past week or two.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's aid strategy has been a complete disaster for the north-west, where assisted area status has been taken away from places such as Manchester and Salford? Is he further aware that even today a deputation is visiting the House from GEC, Trafford Park, where there now remain about 5,000 or 6,000 workers where once there were 25,000 workers? The work is now going down to Rugby and Stafford, and the Trafford Park industrial estate, the first one in Britain, is now an industrial desert. What will the Secretary of State do about that?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The answer to his last question is that the Government will continue with their economic policies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask himself what more he can do to help reduce our costs in industry to make industry more competitive with those abroad. The hon. Gentleman could conceivably be more helpful than he sometimes is.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nation as a whole has a social and economic responsibility to the less well endowed parts of our country? In that context, while acknowledging the importance that my right hon. Friend


places on the link between aid and job creation, may I ask whether he agrees that regional aids can play as important part in job maintenance as it can in job creation?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, of course aid can play a part. That is why there will be provision through the regional aid system to assist companies in the regions, or those going to the regions, to finance new processes, new equipment and so on. I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, as ever.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why did my right hon. Friend not give me that answer earlier?

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that since the global amount is to be reduced, and since the present criteria which favour Scotland are to go, today's statement is very bad news for Scotland? As the right hon. Gentleman is against spending public money just to move jobs around, can he tell the House exactly how he will prevent firms like Gomba, after two years free rent at public expense, from moving Stonefield truck production from Cumnock where unemployment is extremely high, down to the enterprise zone in Rochester in the south-east of England? How will he prevent that?

Mr. Tebbit: When regional aid is paid and the conditions are not adhered to, a clawback operates for five years. I understand that the company which the hon. Member mentioned felt that it had been badly treated locally in a number of ways, particularly by the local authority.

Mr. Foulkes: That is nonsense.

Mr. Tebbit: I am not saying what the facts are, but what I understand the company feels. The hon. Member cannot say that he knows better than I what I understand. He should consider whether the area should have tried to make itself as attractive to that company as the area to which it has moved. I cannot understand which criteria are being altered so that they are damaging to Scotland.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed in Scotland, where much concern has been expressed about the indiscriminate use of money for regional development grants? Is he further aware that the CBI in Scotland has called for a positive policy of cost—effective selective regional assistance, which includes aid to service industries, which have an impressive record in job creation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed consultation process on regional policy is infinitely preferable to the damaging changes of policy such as the Labour party pursued when it precipitately cancelled the regional employment premium?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. It is clear that the Government have set about making changes in policies in a more constructive and considered way than the last Labour Administration, with their chopping and changing. I am well aware of the wide welcome that is likely to be given to the proposals by responsible opinion in Scotland.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Is tourism a service industry in terms of the White Paper? Does the Secretary of State recall exchanges in the House during which he said that mines in my constituency did not qualify for regional development grant because they were not mobile?

Does the mobility clause in the White Paper mean that in future mines in Cornwall will receive regional development grant?

Mr. Tebbit: Not necessarily. Technology goes a long way, but the concept of mobile mines is not yet with us. There are reasons why extractive industries are not usually supported in the same way as other industries. I have said that certain classes of service industries will attract support. Which classes are included is a matter for consultation.

Mr. John Watson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the present system of regional development grants and selective assistance has not only had the effect of subsidising the transfer of jobs from one part of the country to another, but sometimes the transfer of jobs from one development area to another? Is he aware that his intention to change that will be welcome? Can he say a little more about how that intention will be put into effect?

Mr. Tebbit: Principally, in future selective financial aid will not normally be paid in respect of mere transfers when no net increase of jobs is involved. Secondly, in future RDGs will not be paid when there is merely a movement of jobs from one assisted area to another. I hope that that will be helpful in reducing the amount of job shuffling at public expense.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I appreciate the need to obtain value for money, but is it not rather callous to try to cut regional aid when between 3 million and 4 million people are unemployed? Does the Secretary of State not appreciate the traumatic experience of areas such as south Wales where many thousands of redundancies have occurred, particularly as a result of steel closures? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that such areas are still desperately trying to pick up the pieces and need a bit of continuity?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that the policy is callous, because a substantial number of the 3 million unemployed are not in areas which are in receipt of regional aid, but are in paying and job-exporting areas. One must consider them as well. We must maintain a balance. Surely it is right to ensure that we spend our money with care arid seek the best value for it.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about south Wales. It has been through some extremely difficult times with the decline of the Welsh mining industry, particularly because of the narrow seams which are no longer economic to exploit. We must remember that south Wales has had a spectacular success in attracting inward investment, not least because of the great efforts by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who was on the Bench beside me until a few moments ago.

Mr. John Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer about job-exporting areas will be welcome in constituencies such as mine? Is he further aware that many of us believe that regional economic aid does not create jobs, but represents a net cost to the taxpayer rather than a bonus?

Mr. Tebbit: I note what my hon. Friend says. Many hold the view, as he rightly says.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I had given up all hope of being called. Is the Secretary of State aware


that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) means that the Government intend to perpetuate the disadvantages experienced by the English regions? Is he further aware that it is not quite true to say that jobs are shifted only within the United Kingdom? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the regional policy means that the Scottish and Welsh Development agencies have the funds to attract jobs from abroad? Those agencies often take full-page advertisements in our national newspapers describing their spectacular successes. If those funds are not available to the English agencies—I am speaking for the northwest region—they are at a considerable disadvantage. Will the Minister look at the position?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall certainly examine what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he should not underestimate the amount of inward investment that is brought into England as well as Scotland and Wales by use of RDGs, selective financial assistance and the efforts of those who go abroad seeking to persuade foreign companies to invest in Britain generally. There are regional development agencies, including the North-West Industrial Development Association, which receive Government assistance.

Mr. Shore: I believe that the Secretary of State realises that these exchanges have brought out and confirmed the central piece of bad news that the Government, at a time when regional unemployment is at its highest level for 50 years, are to cut regional employment aid. That is the Government's message. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has said that there is to be a further cut beyond the £100 million to £200 million cut that was announced in 1979 by his predecessor.
The Secretary of State said a great deal about cost effectiveness, and in principle applied cost effectiveness to particular items of regional aid. We have no objection to that, provided that it is done thoroughly and honestly. I encourage the Secretary of State to apply cost effectiveness to Government expenditure generally on unemployment. Is he not aware that he was talking about a sum of about £900 million on regional development aid of all types, as opposed to the direct and indirect costs of about £17,000 million a year to sustain the army of unemployed in idleness? In those circumstances, is it not simply nonsense and a disgrace even to be contemplating further reductions in the amount of regional aid?

Mr. Tebbit: In short, I do not. It is imperative that we receive the best value for our money and that we do not spend more than the economy can afford on any of those items.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has said to me that he thought that at one stage in an answer I used the letters "RDGs" as opposed to "selective financial assistance" in referring to the limits on what could be paid when projects were moved between one region and another. I shall check the Official Report and ensure that I have used the correct expression.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new regional policy statement has just been made, will you explain why not one Opposition Member or, so far as I can recall, one Conservative Member, representing the Yorkshire and

Humberside region has been called, whereas five Opposition Members from the north-west region have been called?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that this is an extremely difficult task. He is really saying that he has not been called. I do my best to balance questions.

Mr. Foulkes: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my question the Secretary of State attacked the Cumnock and Doon Valley district council. I know the facts about Gomba. The company's only quarrel was not with the Cumnock and Doon Valley district council, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but an argument with the Secretary of State.

European Human Rights Convention

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give effect to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to Protocol No. 1 and Protocol No. 4 thereto and to give to the rights and freedoms guaranteed thereby the force of law in the United Kingdom.
The European convention on human rights was ratified by the United Kingdom more than 30 years ago. The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify it. There is a distinctly British feel about the European convention. That is not surprising, because it was drafted largely by the late David Maxwell Fyfe, Lord Kilmuir, as chairman of the Legal Committee of the Assembly of the Council of Europe. The convention was ratified by the Labour Government, led by Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin. Subsequently, in 1965, the then Labour Government agreed to give effect to what had always been understood to be the intention — to give to these within this country's jurisdiction the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights.
In Parliament and across parties there has been broad support for the view that the final step — the incorporation of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law—should be taken by the enactment by Parliament of a Bill to give effect in the United Kingdom to the convention's provisions to secure the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention. The provisions, which constitute an international legal responsibility, would then be able to be the subject of proceedings in our domestic courts to ensure that our citizens enjoy a domestic remedy for an alleged infringement of the European convention.
The convention enables those within the jurisdiction to complain about the application of legislation, the decisions of Ministers or public officials and the judgments of United Kingdom courts. The convention has been invoked in a number of cases brought before the European Commission against the United Kingdom.
A subsidiary purpose of the Bill is to seek to ensure that the United Kingdom and its authorities are not so frequently brought before an international tribunal for alleged breaches, as has been the case since 1965 when the right of individual petition was granted. In that period, no fewer than 80 cases have been taken against the British Government and public authorities. That is more than twice as many cases as have been taken against any other Governments who are signatories to the European


convention. Those cases have covered matters such as alleged inhuman treatment of suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland, inadequate safeguarding of personal privacy against telephone tapping by the police, unfair discrimination against British wives of foreign husbands under the immigration rules, alleged inhuman conditions in cases of solitary confinement and segration, corporal punishment in Scottish schools, ineffective judicial protection for detained mental patients and would-be immigrants, dismissal of workers because of the oppressive operation of a closed shop, nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding companies without adequate compensation, denial of equal citizenship rights to British passport holders from east Africa and interference with free expression by the law lords in extending the common law offences of contempt of court and blasphemy. Many other important matters of public law have been brought before the commission.
It is my view, and that of the many people who support the proposed incorporation into our law of the convention's provisions, that these matters are more properly dealt with in this country by our courts. The courts are capable of doing that job. It is a peculiarity that a convention that was largely devised by British lawyers, judges and Ministers should not have been incorporated into our domestic law.
It is strange, too, that this country, and this Parliament, which has legislated for the independence of so many former colonies and dependent territories and made provision that such rights as are enjoyed under the European convention shall be enjoyed by those newly independent countries, has not made similar provision for itself. Indeed, I believe that, save for New Zealand, we are the only country in the democratic Commonwealth which has not so secured the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens.
It is not only in the Commonwealth that we are the odd man out. The European democracies, too, mostly enjoy the benefits of a bill of rights and the provisions of the convention incorporated into their domestic law. The United States of America, with its Bill of Rights as part of its written constitution, has long enjoyed this important protection for the individual citizen.
It has sometimes been wondered whether the judges of this country are capable of deciding these matters, which are frequently of a political nature. Since the setting up of

the independent countries of the Commonwealth, however, these provisions have been adjudicated upon time and again by British judges in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Our judges have demonstrated their expertise and capacity to deal with these matters. Indeed, Lord Scarman, in his Hamlyn lecture in 1974, gave the first resounding call for the incorporation of these provisions into our domestic law.
It has been argued that Parliament cannot bind its successors and, because of its sovereignty, is supreme over any such bill of rights. That is true, but the Bill that I seek leave to introduce would ensure that Parliament would not seek to bind its successors by the incorporation of the European convention. The Bill would also specifically retain to Parliament the power to overrule the convention in express terms. Otherwise, the provisions of Parliament would be construed to be in conformity with those of the European convention.
In the absence of this action by the House and Parliament, I believe that we have an incomplete and defective system of public law which may operate more as a shield for public authorities than as a protection for the rights of individuals. I believe that the Bill will command wide support throughout Parliament. A similar Bill has already twice gone through all its stages in another place and been approved by a Select Committee of the House of Lords, recommended by the Standing Commission on the Constitution of Northern Ireland and backed by many of the highest judges in the realm I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Alex Carlile, Sir Edward Gardner, Mr. Terence Higgins, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon and Mr. Norman St John-Stevas.

EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION

Mr. Robert Maclennan accordingly presented a Bill to give effect to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to Protocol No. 1 and Protocol No. 4 thereto and to give to the rights and freedoms guaranteed thereby the force of law in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 March and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill now be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is quite simply to improve London's transport. It marks the end of an unsuccessful 14-year experiment. In 1969 the Transport (London) Act passed control of London's public transport to the newly created Greater London council. With hindsight, we can clearly discern the conventional wisdom that made such a move seem a natural one. That was the heyday of the age of corporatism—the mixing up of the commercial and the political. It was the age of "big is beautiful", when everything had to be co-ordinated and integrated with almost everything else, so London Transport was thrown to the mercies of the GLC.
The GLC was given a duty under the 1969 Act to 
promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London.
Some of us even then were suspicious. Our worst suspicions have been confirmed 14 years later. We now see transport services that are not integrated, not economic and most certainly not efficient. The fashion of the times to confuse the issue of social provision with that of efficiency was, in fact, fundamentally misconceived. There are still those who believe that London Transport should be subjected to what they call "political control", but I believe that it should be run as a business and that where social provision is justified it should be properly identified and paid for separately.
The GLC has also signally failed in its basic purpose of acting as a strategic transport authority. The Select Committee on Transport described London's roads as a "national scandal". In traffic management the GLC has caused widespread concern to industry and commerce through its proposals for a London-wide lorry ban —which, as the Select Committee said and as the Government have agreed, would damage the commercial and industrial life of the capital. At the same time the GLC has plunged London Transport into the chaos that we are now seeking to bring to an end.
Let us consider the record of the GLC's stewardship of London Transport from 1970 to the present day. Since 1970 London Transport costs have soared. Unit costs—that is, costs per vehicle mile—rose in real terms by two thirds for the buses and about half for the underground. The reason for this is that passenger demand has declined by about a quarter over the period, while capacity has remained broadly constant. Manpower, at least until 1981, remained level at about 60,000 staff. Since 1973, more than 30 per cent. of LT's staff have been engaged on engineering and maintenance work. The unit cost of bus engineering has more than doubled in real terms. Indeed, the need for much greater efficiency in this area was what led the Government to refer LT's bus maintenance operations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last March. As for the underground, however one does the comparison for efficiency, LT comes out near the bottom of the international league table.
The inevitable consequence has been a huge rise in the total subsidy bill to London Transport—from some £6·5 million in 1970 to a colossal £370 million in 1982. I know that all public transport operators have found this a difficult period, especially on account of the very rapid rise in real wages in the mid-1970s, but London Transport's record has been worse than most. For instance, the two thirds rise in LT's bus costs compares with only half in the case of other bus operation in this country. For the underground, the figure of more than 50 per cent. compares with British Rail's figure of around 10 per cent. If keeping a particular level of subsidy is seen as an end in itself, there will never be the right incentives to improve management efficiency. If at the same time the aim is to keep fares down and service levels constant, it is the taxpayer and ratepayer who suffer.
It was this blatant disregard for the providers of subsidy which finally caught out the GLC two years ago. In October 1981 London Transport fares were cut by one third. The GLC itself estimated that the extra cost in subsidy of this policy over four years would be £1·2 billion. Far from attempting to mitigate this enormous cost, the GLC has taken exactly the opposite line. This year LT presented the GLC with its new three-year plan. Among the many sensible features of the plan were proposals for slight reductions in bus mileage and a substantial cut in unit costs. The reaction of the GLC was to move quickly to fill five vacant places on the board with its own nominees, rejecting all the suggestions of the chairman of London Transport. It sought to defend this in a letter to The Guardian and promised that future appointments would be fully agreed by all concerned.
That undertaking was thrown to the winds only a couple of months later when, in the teeth of further objections from London Transport, two more appointments were made. One was the chairman of the London Labour party, whose membership of the Tribune group and support for the Soviet backed regime in Afghanistan "obviously" fitted him for the difficult job of running London Transport.

Mr. John Prescott: Cheap.

Mr. Ridley: The other was the organiser of Mr. Livingstone's unsuccessful attempt to capture the Labour party nomination for Brent, East. When the GLC discovered that this was contrary to the GLC—London Transport long-standing rules about making political appointments to London Transport, it promptly changed the rules by amending its standing orders. I expect the next vacancy will be filled by Arthur Scargill, because at least he has undoubted experience underground. It is totally wrong that the GLC should seek to turn London Transport into a political appendage of itself.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Minister of the view that, if he does not have a policy, he should go for the man?

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting support for putting active political figures on to a managerial board in contravention of the standing orders of that board? If so, I am ashamed that he should even dare to raise the question. It is also a disaster for the long-term interests of Londoners, who want a decent transport system at a decent price.
Finally, we heard Mr. Livingstone's reported reaction to the Bill. He castigated the Government's aim to run


London Transport "as a business". There could be no more revealing insight into the GLC's attitude to the use of public money—money, I might say, the bulk of which is levied by the GLC on London's businesses.
Even before the Bill was published, expensive posters went up all over London telling Londoners to "Kill the Bill" and suggesting that as a result of the Bill specific services would be cut and fares would rise. The GLC even had the temerity — even though London Transport protested—to include the London Transport symbol on the posters, thus implying that the LTE was party to the campaign, which it categorically stated it was not. The dishonest and reckless use to which the GLC has put £850,000 of ratepayers' money is nothing less than scandalous.

Mr. Prescott: Dishonest?

Mr. Ridley: It is lucky that London buses have always been painted red. Otherwise, no doubt the GLC would make the ratepayers fork out more money to do so.
I have one word of caution for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who will soon be speaking for the Opposition. He made a major blunder in going to County hall to queue for inclusion in the GLC press conference when the Bill was published. He was given leave to speak rather late in the pecking order. I hope that his speech will not be just reading out the GLC brief. I have a copy here and it is neither convincing nor accurate. We have all read it already; I shall be quoting from it freely during the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman would be wiser to follow his predecessors and dissociate himself from the discredited mob on the South bank. The Labour party must learn to develop policies of its own and not just join every passing pressure group.
No Government that had the interests of Londoners at heart could sit idly by despite these extraordinary events. It is time to bring to an end this 14-year old experiment with London's public transport, and quickly.
The Government have had the benefit of the advice of the Select Committee on Transport, which published its report on transport in London in July 1982. The report contained an impressive and thorough analysis of the defects of London's transport. We agreed with a great deal of this analysis. We agreed with the Committee that public transport had to be taken away from the GLC and that a major reallocation of responsibilities was needed.
Where we differed from the Select Committee was with its suggestion of a Metropolitan Transport Authority, responsible for London Transport and for roads and traffic management. It would have carved off a slice of territory from a number of home counties. Some of its members would have been nominated by me, others by the local authorities and others by users. The exact nature of such representatives was a real problem which the Committee clearly recognised, so much so that it was unable to reach a firm view on it. But there are other difficulties with this model. As a solution for London's transport problems as a whole, the MTA smacked too much of the corporatism which was, in our view, an important reason for the GLC's past failures. It would have been horribly similar to the GLC itself without being directly elected by the electors. It was envisaged that the MTA would sit between the Government, as the grant-giving body, and London Transport as the operator of the tube and buses.
The real need is for London Transport to be allowed freedom to manage its affairs with a minimum of political

interference and control, but within clearly stated financial and policy objectives. London Transport is important in a national context, a key point in the Select Committee report. Thus the strategic control, and some of the financial support, should come from central Government. The Bill adopts that objective as its starting point.
We want the new arrangements to be simple and workable without involving organisational upheaval.

Mr. David Howell: I agree totally with my right hon. Friend's views about the difficulties of a Metropolitan Transport Authority—I am sure he has that analysis and remedy right — but will he accept that British Rail's surface railways are a vital part of London's regional transport system and that an effective operation in the future will require close co-ordination with and, indeed, supervision by London Regional Transport of the British Rail commuter network? Will he give an assurance that the powers exist in the Bill and will be used to bring that about, even if he has not been able to arrange it so far?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because I agree with what he says. I shall deal with that point at some length later on.
We also want, for reasons which I have already made clear, a scheme that could be implemented very quickly. We want a scheme that will allow further changes in due time to meet the various objectives that we have in mind.
Rather than create a new body for the running of London's transport, with all the complications of the vesting of London Transport's assets which that would entail, we propose, so to speak, to keep London Transport as it is, but simply to transfer control of it from the GLC to the Government. This is achieved by the first clause of and the first schedule to the Bill. The GLC's powers in relation to London Transport are removed with the repeal of parts I and II of the 1969 Act. The schedule sets out the new constitution of the board. The change will occur on a day appointed by me, as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill. At the same time the London Transport Executive will assume its new name, London Regional Transport, and its new identity while retaining, initially at least, its physical manifestation.
The GLC is seeking to argue that, with the repeal of part 1 of the 1969 Act, public transport in London will no longer be looked at in the wider context. That is patent nonsense. First, under the provisions of this Bill, LRT will be required to prepare plans and to consult widely on them. It will have to have regard to the objectives and principles I set for it. When the Government have decided on the better planning framework for London that will operate on the GLC's demise, public transport, along with highways, traffic management and all the rest, will certainly 'operate within that wider context. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that.
In our White Paper we said that LRT's bus and underground operations would be established as separate subsidiaries under LRT as a holding body. This is achieved under clause 4, which requires LRT to establish Companies Act companies for both purposes within a period that I shall specify. This is an important step and in order to develop the approach London Transport Executive has started to break down its monolithic structure. London Regional Transport will look across the field to see exactly what is needed by way of public transport. When it comes to delivering that cost


effectively, separate companies will be accountable for their own performance and they will each publish separate accounts and make their own demands for external finance. This further change will occur as soon as the subsidiaries are established with suitable objectives and the right capital structure.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not that last explanation the opposite of what the Minister said earlier about London Transport remaining, to use his words, much as it was before? Does he agree that the arrangement that he has just explained goes back to before 1912 in terms of the integration of buses and railways? If so, how can he claim that the nature of London Transport will remain what it is now, except that he will take it away from the GLC?

Mr. Ridley: I was referring earlier to the statutory position. Instead of re-forming a new London Transport, with all the new schedules and legal constitution that that would need, we are simply taking the existing London Transport and transferring it back to the Government. We are taking the opportunity at the same time to make them separate companies, but that does not change its legal entity.
The main financial provisions are in clauses 15 to 24. LRT will receive grants from the Government under clause 12 in support of its capital expenditure and operating deficits, and those of its subsidiaries. It will operate within a financial break-even duty under clause 15. I shall be able to set specific financial objectives for LRT, or any of its subsidiaries, under clause 16.
One of the most important long-term reasons for the provisions of the Bill is the need for closer co-operation, in the interests of the passenger, between London's bus and underground services on the one hand and British Rail's services in the London region on the other. Here I come to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). The Bill will ensure that in future the two major operators in London will be subject to compatible policy and financial frameworks. It will bring the two systems better in tune with each other. It will tackle wasteful duplication between the two systems, seek to achieve the speeding up of improved ticketing systems, better facilities for interchange and better information designed to help the traveller move more easily between modes. I intend to set up a liaison committee consisting of the two bodies under my chairmanship to make sure that this work is carried out as quickly and effectively as possible.
These new liaison arrangements should secure the changes that we all want to see. If they do not, the Bill contains further important powers that can be activated at any time up to eight years from the enactment of the Bill. These are the provisions in clauses 35 to 38, under which LRT would assume the functions of subsidising authority to British Rail's services in the London region. LRT would then become, in effect, the sole authority responsible for the allocation of resources among all London's major public transport operators, and in particular for the level of service on British Rail's commuter services.

Mr. Robert Adley: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), I am concerned about the relationship between British Rail and

London Transport, and I agree that the closer their operations can be brought, the better. Is it possible to foresee a situation under the Bill in which, for example—as my right hon. Friend is considering separating the operations of buses and railways in London Transport—British Rail could take over the railway operations of London Regional Transport?

Mr. Ridley: It is possible to foresee that happening under the Bill — because we have powers in other clauses, to which I shall be referring, to allow other operators to run services for London Transport—but I do not think that that is the sort of solution to the problems that many people have in mind. It is much more a question of liaison and phasing the interchanges among bus, rail and tube terminals in such a way that passengers can move around easily. I should prefer to achieve our aims through the simpler, more informal arrangements of liaison and cooperation to which I have been referring. I assure the House that if more formal arrangements prove necessary we shall bring them in forthwith and we shall have the basic legislative provisions ready in place.
The 1983 LTE plans envisaged cost reductions of more than 9 per cent. over the next three years. It must be in the interests of everyone that these savings are achieved. Without them, the investment resources that are needed to secure a better, more easily used and more reliable system will be bled away. This will require strong management and firm financial disciplines. The Bill provides the opportunities. The securing of better value for money will be one of the first and most important tasks of the new chairman of LRT and his board. I shall look to the board to achieve this.

Mr. Prescott: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the ratepayers' present contribution to the total public support received by London Transport?

Mr. Ridley: I am coming to that very point.
The Bill provides opportunities for more efficient and accountable management throughout the new organisation. The main bus company will be encouraged to form smaller subsidiaries to take further the decentralisation of its bus operations already started by LTE; and the ancillary services, such as engineering and maintenance, can, under clause 3(1) be established as subsidiary companies which will sell their services to the main operating subsidiaries in competition with other suppliers.
The third objective of the Bill is encouraging the involvement of the private sector. The Bill aims to achieve this in several ways. First, under clause 6, LRT will be under an obligation to involve independent suppliers in the provision of public transport and other services wherever this makes economic sense. Its duty is similar to that laid down under section 8 of the Transport Act 1983. Already, under that duty, LT has undertaken a major review of its bus engineering operations and facilities and has concluded that substantial economies can be achieved at its Aldenham and Chiswick bus works. It has secured the co-operation of the unions in examining the details of implementation. Needless to say that progress towards cost-cutting in this area, as in other areas, is being opposed by the GLC.
This duty can be taken together with clause 3(2), which enables LRT to enter into agreements with other public transport operators for the provision of services and, with clause 3(3), gives LRT the power to pay for such services


as appropriate. There are many possibilities in this area, for instance the use of low capacity vehicles in outlying areas or at times of the day—evenings and weekends—where there is a demand to be satisfied but it is not sufficient to justify the use of LRT's own buses.
Secondly, the new licensing arrangements contained in clauses 42 and 43 will enable, for the first time, independent bus services to be provided in London—exactly as in other parts of the country — through licences granted by the Metropolitan traffic commissioners. Operators will, if they wish, be able to seek to run services through a clause 3(2) agreement with LRT, but they will not be obliged to do that. In this way we shall be seeking, in the interests of healthy competition, to loosen the monopolistic position that London Transport has held since 1933.
Clause 13 provides that there should be a contribution from the ratepayer towards the cost of Government grants to LRT. The contribution will be in the form of a levy on the rating authorities in London. The Bill lays down that the maximum amount of this contribution is to be two thirds of grants paid to LRT under clause 12. The annual amount to be levied will be expressed as a rate poundage and will be set out in an annual order laid before Parliament and subject to the negative procedure.
It must be right for London's ratepayers to make a contribution to this body; there is no argument for treating London ratepayers in a more favourable way than ratepayers elsewhere. I suspect that I can rely on hon. Members with constituencies outside London to mount an adequate defence against arguments of this kind.
Nor do I accept the argument that such a levy is undemocratic. An elected body for the LRT board is simply not workable. A contribution from the ratepayers has, in fairness, to be secured. I will be accountable to hon. Members for the amount levied. We could have done this in a roundabout, complex way, through an abatement of Londoners' entitlement to block grant and transport supplementary grant. It seemed preferable that the amount of the levy and the basis on which it is calculated should be absolutely clear, and that ratepayers should have the means, through their Members of Parliament, to question both the basis of the levy and the amount of the expenditure for which the levy is being raised.
Under the present arrangements, the actual amount that they are currently providing to public transport has never been clear to London ratepayers. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me what it was. We decided to express the contribution as a simple percentage of expenditure, rather than a formula derived from the highly complex and opaque workings of the rate support grant. There will be a separately indentifiable item on the ratepayer's rate bill. He can also see the amount of expenditure on LRT, so he can express, through his Member of Parliament, his views on the call that LRT makes on public funds. There is the accountability. It also helps to apply the proper financial pressures on LRT itself.
I now come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, about the actual proportion laid down in the Bill and what it was before. The GLC has claimed that two thirds—the figure in the Bill—is no improvement on what the ratepayers are contributing to their public transport now. However, the GLC cannot bear the thought that something is to be done by the Government for the benefit of ratepayers. Last autumn it was claiming in press advertisements, paid for by the

ratepayers, that only 3 per cent. of London Transport's total costs was provided by the taxpayer, which is equivalent to a ratepayer contribution of over 90 per cent. Now, a year later, in its recent publication, the GLC is suddenly saying, because it suits it, that the ratepayer is paying only 60 per cent. Such conjuring tricks will not fool Londoners.
On the evidence of the GLC's own expenditure plans, cutting the ratepayer's share to two thirds will give ratepayers a far better deal now and will save them from even worse prospects if London Transport were to remain under GLC control. That is the hon. Gentleman's answer—the ratepayer is paying more now than he will in the future.

Mr. Prescott: That is not the answer. It might do for Aims of Industry, for which the right hon. Gentleman has written many pamphlets, but it will not do for the House. I ask the Secretary of State specifically: what is the proportion of public cost paid by the ratepayer out of the budget for transport this year?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that to do that sum one has to go through the whole gamut of the system of local government finance and the fact that the GLC has driven itself into the penalty area of finance, and on any estimate the result is more than the figure in the Bill. There are a number of ways in which one can do the calculations, and any way one does them will show that the ratepayers are getting a better deal out of the Bill

Mr. Prescott: It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to criticise the GLC for having different percentages for the ratepayers' contribution. If he does not know himself, how can he make a judgment about the GLC?

Mr. Ridley: I do know.

Mr. Prescott: Tell us.

Mr. Ridley: One can derive a whole range of figures, depending on which way one does the calculations, but I defy the hon. Gentleman to produce an answer that is lower than the answer in the Bill, because the Bill represents an improvement for London ratepayers.
I come now to the question of concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled, which is an important matter, especially for the 1 million—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, may not care about this, but some people do, especially the 1 million pensioners who benefit from the present concessionary fares scheme. Nevertheless, I regret the need to deal with the issue here and now, for the simple reason that it has little to do with the Bill to establish London Regional Transport.
In the GLC's reprehensible pamphlet "Kill the Bill", of which I have a copy here as a visual aid to help the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and which is part of the £850,000 of ratepayers' money which the GLC is spending on a programme of propaganda, it states:
If the Transport Bill becomes law your free pass is at risk.
That is not true. The Bill simply re-enacts existing powers for LRT to deliver a concessionary fares scheme. Until the GLC is abolished, it is and will be responsible for providing money for the concessionary fares scheme. The Bill does not affect that at all.

Mr. Prescott: What about the future?

Mr. Ridley: I am talking not about any Bill that may come in the future, but about this Bill, and so was the GLC. The GLC and the hon. Gentleman are suggesting that the Bill kills the concessionary fares scheme, but they know that that is not true.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. Friend will know that the concessionary passes are extremely important to the 1 million pensioners who receive them, and succeeding Labour and Conservative administrations at County Hall have used them. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said recently in an important Adjournment debate on this matter—that there are two years left for the negotiation of these passes—and the essential need for these passes to continue, will my right hon. Friend say that he will, if necessary, seek power to ensure that they do continue should there be any doubt at the end of the negotiating period?

Mr. Ridley: I give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that I agree with him about the importance of these passes. However, I am not prepared to say that it would be right for the Government to propose legislation to take away what is properly a function of local government. Moreover, it would be wrong to do so in the Bill, because this is part of the social provision of local government.
It is proper for hon. Gentlemen to ask what is likely to replace the present GLC scheme after its demise, when the London boroughs, as everyone knows, will take over that responsibility. The London Boroughs Association has already agreed to work out the details of the scheme and to make proposals. Regrettably the London boroughs that are refusing to join these discussions are the same as those that are running a political campaign against the abolition of the GLC, paid for again with ratepayers' money. Those are the boroughs that give me problems.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State accept that the London Boroughs Association has no statutory powers to enforce or compel boroughs to join in the concessionary fares scheme? It can only advise the boroughs to do so, but under what seems to be the Government's likely proposal the decision will be discretionary on the boroughs. Some boroughs will have a scheme, and some will not, and that will result in a grave deterioration of the present all-London scheme.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has a profound and impressive understanding of the constitution of the LBA, on which I congratulate him. Perhaps he will therefore address his entreaties to the London boroughs rather than to me. As he said so clearly, they are responsible.
My simple message to old-age pensioners is, "Do not be frightened by the GLC." Even the GLC admits in its booklet that the scheme will be replaced. Of course, it has an interest in not being abolished and will try every scare story to save its skin.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend accept, although one may not have pleasure in saying it, that he is risking skating lightly over this serious and solemn subject, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) implied? This concessionary system is vital to all pensioners in London. Therefore, can my right hon. Friend deal with this matter in all seriousness and show which outer London boroughs have

expressed serious reservations about his proposition that they should undertake these duties if the legislation comes into being?

Mr. Ridley: I do not for one moment think that I failed to give this matter the serious consideration that it deserves. That is not the point. A further principle is involved. This is properly a local government function and it is serious to suggest that one should remove such a social function from local government. The concessionary fares scheme is not part of local government's transport budget; it is part of the social budget. The scheme could not in any event be provided for by a Transport Bill. If it were thought necessary to remove the function, that would have profound implications for local authorities' powers. Those boroughs which have refused to discuss are the Labour-controlled boroughs which are members of the Association of London Authorities. There are some differences of opinion in some Conservative-controlled boroughs over the best method of providing concessionary fares, but not about whether they should be provided.
I rely upon my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who, I think, represents a constituency in one of the boroughs which has had doubts, to ensure that his pensioners are protected by his borough.

Mr. Dykes: To assist it, will my right hon. Friend give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked?

Mr. Ridley: No, I have no intention of removing control in these matters from the London boroughs, where it properly should lie. It is perfectly right for hon. Members to discuss with their boroughs the best way to fulfil the need, and the boroughs have two years within which they can come forward with a scheme.
I next come to the subject of LRT's general fares and charges. On 7 December I informed the GLC that its protected expenditure level for revenue support for 1984–85 will be £125 million, the same as for 1983–84. The amount does not make necessary any substantial increase in fares in 1984–85 provided that nothing is done to add further to costs or to block and squander the savings which the executive expects to achieve in 1983–84.
That is the position for 1984–85. We shall see how the GLC acts in the light of its statutory responsibility to take into account my guidance in approving a plan for LT and making its determination of the amount of revenue grants to be made by it to LT in 1984–85.
In the longer term the level of fares will reflect the degree of success LRT has in cutting costs and improving efficiency. I see no reason why fares and charges should continue to outstrip the increase in prices generally, given the scope that there is in LRT for substantial cost savings.
Finally, the new consumer arrangements for public transport in London are dealt with in clauses 39 and 40 and schedule 3. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will say more about these arrangements at the end of this debate if she has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: When my right hon. Friend talks about the London Transport consumer, will he bear in mind that many people who live outside the Greater London area will make considerable use of the facilities and ensure that they are always consulted about future services and fares?

Mr. Ridley: I am conscious of that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. We must ensure that such consultation takes place.
The proposals create one new consumer body to deal with all public transport provision in and around London, including BR's services in the London region — that might cover the services to which my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) referred—in place of the two separate existing bodies. This proposal arose from fruitful discussions that we had with the existing consumer bodies during consultation on the White Paper. This is the one material aspect in which the content of the Bill differs from the proposals in the White Paper.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to provide the most convenient, attractive and efficient service possible for London's travelling public. The Select Committee said that London's public transport needed a face-lift. I agree. The Bill provides the way to achieve that face-lift for London's public transport for the first time since the great London Passenger Transport Act of 50 years ago. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State's speech completely ignored many facts about transport which he would know if he were prepared to study them. It reflected more the articles, propaganda and rhetoric associated with Aims for Industry. His speech became a little better when he presumably read from his brief.
The Opposition are against the Bill for many reasons that will no doubt be made clear during the debate. I want to address a considerable number of my remarks to the two major areas to which we are opposed. First, we believe that the Bill will eventually increase fares and reduce services. Indeed, the Bill is designed to do that. The Bill will reduce public financial resources essential for a modern, integrated transport service in the capital. It meets the Treasury's needs rather than those of Londoners. Secondly, the Bill constitutes a fundamental denial of Londoners' democratic rights and a major attack upon the British tradition of local government.
It is important to note from the beginning some of the reasons that the Government have given for this dictatorial action. The Secretary of State — London Transport's supremo, or, as has been suggested, commissar —proposes to give London Transport instructions similar to those of some alien, political philosophies that he does not endorse.—[Interruption.] I shall address myself to the arguments, which is more than the Secretary of State has done this evening. We have heard the same arguments advanced by the Secretary of State as those he gave in the White Paper and in press conferences. I am not too concerned about hierarchy or where I appear at a press conference. I like to address myself to the substance of the argument and to be judged on that.
I am not embarrassed by siding with the GLC in the argument about London Transport's future. I find myself in good company, because the latest poll shows that 90 per cent. of Londoners wish to retain GLC control of transport. The Secretary of State has not suggested anything different today. The Secretary of State rehearsed arguments about how costs have soared. that there has been intolerant, political interference, and that these huge public resources, as they are, can be used to better effect.

Mr. John Page: rose——

Mr. Prescott: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has only just arrived.

Mr. Page: I have listened to every word that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have said. As always, I am seeking information. What is the poll, and where was it published?

Mr. Prescott: The poll was produced yesterday and published in The Standard. It was interesting to read the editorial in The Standard about the Bill. It makes clear that a sample survey was conducted comparing the questions asked four months ago with yesterday. The poll asked whether people supported GLC control of the transport system as presently organised, and it showed that support for the GLC has increased.
The Government's solution to transport problems is to nationalise London Transport. The arguments advanced by the Secretary of State to justify the action are the same as those he used yesterday to justify the privatisation of British Airways. Nevertheless, he feels that by nationalising London Transport he will divorce it from the control of elected representatives and be able to ionstruct London Regional Transport management to have due regard only to London's transport needs, with the overriding change to achieve the Treasury's financial targets set by the Secretary of State. That came clearly from the Secretary of State's statement today and is consistent with what he has said in the past.
The Secretary of State has added to it, of course, the essential bit of ideological spice—privatisation of buses and now, presumably, rail services as well. In addition, there is the overriding saving of all changes — greater efficiency. I am not convinced by the argument. I am amazed by the Secretary of State, who built up a considerable reputation in the 1970s as someone who was against nationalisation because nationalised companies tend to be dominated by trade unions and interfered with by Whitehall.
My hon. Friends and I believe that fares will rise and that services will be cut. That belief comes not only from our judgment, but from well proven and observable principles of public transport economics in the evidence available within this country and outside the GLC—for example, in the passenger transport authorities.
Whether London Transport is run by central Government or the GLC, there will be a requirement to feed pubic resources into it. Indeed, the Minister has made it clear that it will be necessary to give more grants and resources to London Transport. So the argument whether it is run by the GLC or by Government makes no difference to whether it can be run profitably or break even. The argument is simply whether the resources can be managed more effectively, presumably affecting the amount of public resources to be put in.
Urban transport systems in any modern city, as can be seen not only in this country but abroad—and certainly in huge transport concentrations such as in London—cannot be run at a profit. 'Whatever the jargon about running the system in a businesslike way, that does not mean the profit and loss principles that people normally associate with the operation of business. Until 1970 the responsibility for most of our transport undertakings was to break even one year with another—the terminology that is in the Bill.
The break—even policy had at its heart the concept that cross-subsidisation took place — that the more


profitable services tended to pay for the less profitable. The Transport Act 1980 attacked the very principle of cross-subsidisation. That Act has had catastrophic effects, particularly in rural areas, on the provision of services by the National Bus Company. I do not want to enter into that argument, except to say that up to 1970 the break—even principle and cross-subsidisation were important in the financing of our transport system.
I recognise, as the Secretary of State recognised in his contribution, that since 1970 there has been a considerable decline in the use of nearly all transportation systems. Some of it is due to the increasing use of cars, some to the decline in population in many inner city areas and some to increasing costs where there has been an attempt to increase fares to meet the extra costs inclined by the massive explosion in oil and fuel prices. It is not simply an argument of efficiency, as suggested by the Secretary of State. There has been an explosion in transport costs since 1970. Wherever there has been an attempt to match it by increasing revenue from the fare box, it has led to people leaving public transport. That has happened in many parts of the United Kingdom and in public transport systems in America and Europe. I do not think that can be contested by any of us.
As more people have gone to other forms of transportation—in particular the car—so car usage in London has increased, leading to congestion, more problems on the roads and more accidents. That is shown by statistics from the Minister's Department.
I am not here to defend every operation of London Transport. I would be a fool to do that for any transport system. But the London transport system is different from systems in Yorkshire and other metropolitan areas where it has been possible to implement the one-person operation of buses much more effectively. The judgment in London is that conductor services mean that buses do not stay so long at bus stops and therefore cause less congestion. That is another social cost judgment made by the transport operators. Presumably it will be continued by the Secretary of State in his supremo role. I must point out that it means more costs, because labour is an ever-increasing cost in a transportation system. One has to balance the movement of traffic against fares and public subsidies in the maintenance of a modern, sophisticated transport system.
The quality of the service — a point to which the Select Committee and others addressed themselves—and the availability of transport can be as important as the level of fares, but that does not mean that the fare can be downgraded as an essential factor in the percentage of ridership that a transport system is likely to acquire. We have considerable evidence of that. The experiments in fares that have been imposed upon London in the last three years by court decisions, GLC decisions or the withdrawal of grants and the imposition of penalties by the Government have led to comparisons between different types of fare systems.
A low fare system with the same quality, the same buses and the same trains, even if they are painted red, led to more people travelling than when fares were high—for example, at the time when fares were doubled after the court decision. Nobody could doubt that there is an immediate correlation between the price a person pays to

travel and the number of people who use the transportation system. That is simple enough economics, but a point not to be ignored.
The Secretary of State talks about me relying on a London Transport brief, but I must say—

Mr. Ridley: Not London Transport, the GLC.

Mr. Prescott: All right, a GLC brief. I am glad the Secretary of State differentiates between officers and what he calls politicians in the GLC. There are officers in the GLC who prepare briefs, and their objectivity can be seen to be as good from the professional point of view as that of London Transport. The Secretary of State showed today that he was not looking at anybody's prepared brief when we asked him for essential information about ratepayers. He should look at the comparisons of metropolitan passenger transport authorities.
Similar transport bodies carrying out similar services are pursuing different fare policies. For example, one can travel six miles on the south Yorkshire transport system for 11p. In four other passenger transport executives, it will cost 55p to travel the same distance. If we compare similar transport systems operating in a similar way, we will see that those with lower fares have more people travelling on them.
The Secretary of State had little to say about how efficiency should be measured. Even the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's investigation into the West Midlands transport authority has found difficulty defining efficiency. In the PTEs, whether it is measured by total operating cost per vehicle mile, total vehicle miles per vehicle, stage passenger journeys per employee or however, lower fares do not mean lower efficiency. Indeed, those with lower fares are showing higher efficiency, largely due to a greater utilisation of assets.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: May I ask whether business success has followed from the low fare policy in Sheffield or whether businesses have chosen to go to other areas where the rates are not so staggeringly high because of such a policy?

Mr. Ridley: That is a very important question.

Mr. Prescott: It may be a very important question, but if I give the kind of answers you give they will not be satisfactory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have not given any answers today.

Mr. Prescott: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, particularly as you come from that area of Yorkshire and know the answers better than the Secretary of State.
Hard work has been done, and it is a matter of controversial judgment in the area about the effect on business. That is not unique to south Yorkshire. It is the argument of rates versus their effect on business operations. I am not convinced that it has the effect that Conservative Members claim. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) should go to south Yorkshire if he wishes to compare the different transport systems. I am sure that the south Yorkshire authority would be only too willing to invite him.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Prescott: I am trying to be as brief as I can.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prescott: I shall first give way to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for engineering my intervention.
If, as the hon. Gentleman argues, there is an economic link between lower fares and more passengers, why will he not accept an economic link between higher rates and fewer jobs?

Mr. Prescott: Largely because the evidence on ridership is more specific and is statistically stated. I have yet to come across a business man who will state the effects of high rates on his operation. I have asked business men in the Hull area for that specific information, but it is not produced in the same form as evidence on ridership. I can make a more informed judgment about that than I can about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: We hear about high rates in London forcing businesses to move. The same is true of Sheffield and elsewhere. Yet only an hour ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that, notwithstanding high rates, low rates or any rates at all, regional policy had gone up in smoke. Unemployment is high throughout the country. Tory Members were on their feet calling for special consideration for their areas, which are supposed to be low rated.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which crossed my mind when I heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry deploy his arguments on incentives and disincentives.
Evidence suggests that low fares lead to greater use of the transport system. Indeed, the South Yorkshire PTE is the only one that has reversed the decline in public transportation, and that has much to do with the quality of its service and the fares imposed. It is clear that public support for systems such as that is greater and results in more use of the assets involved and higher efficiency.
The essential element of support—subsidy—is not in doubt. Despite the politically motivated action of the Bromley authority, the courts readily accepted that the break—even principle was not a possibility and that subsidy was a requirement for the public transport system. Even the Government accept that subsidy argument in their RSG and TSG statements.
The dispute is about the level of revenue support. That is at the heart of the matter. Put another way, we are talking about the percentage of costs to be raised in fares. It is true not only of Britain but of the continent that, in certain cases, such as south Yorkshire, the proportion of resources devoted to the maintenance of transport systems is greater than can be achieved by a high fare policy, although not proportionately greater because of the level of efficiency.
We know that the German cities give about 50 per cent. public support to their systems, as do the Americans, but other major European cities give about 60 per cent. support. That has been increasing. In London, during the operation of "Fares Fair", the amount of support was 50 per cent., but the doubling of fares took it nearer to 70 per cent. At his press conference, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the level was nearer 80 per cent. After his speech today, he is clearly not aware of the percentage of public support, particularly from the ratepayer.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is mixing two figures. The percentage of support from public funds of all kinds to London Transport is now about 38 per cent. That is a different figure from the percentage that comes from the ratepayer.

Mr. Prescott: I accept that, but I should like to know what the ratepayer contributes.
The Times on Monday reported that the man who runs the Paris Metro and transport system—often quoted in the House as a success—said that aspects of the Bill were "absurd" and added:
lessons to be learnt from France were the full integration of public bus and Underground and private bus services and a high level of subsidy to passengers: two policies the Government wants to abandon.
That is the view of an operator, not from this country, whose system is often referred to as a success in the House.
A greater level of public support in this country is seen as an ideological difference between both sides of the House. It is not viewed as such by monetarist Governments in America and Europe. Their belief is that more resources must be put into public transport as it relieves congestion, conserves energy, reduces accidents and leads to the maximum use of public assets in which investment has already been made. The experiments in London show that much of that is true.
After the doubling of fares in London, following the court decision, accidents increased by nearly 3,000 in the first four months following the abolition of "Fares Fair" and there were 120,000 more car journeys. However, while cheaper fares were in operation, ridership increased by between 10 and 15 per cent. Some of those figures, particularly the accident statistics, have been endorsed by the Secretary of State's Department. Therefore, a clear social objective is involved in any transport system.
I accept that under the various plans put forward on London Transport, the break — even principle would result in a 40 per cent. cut in services and fares. But it is equally clear that the system that the Secretary of State will influence by the amount of support that he gives—the permitted expenditure level of £125 million, which is about £90 million less than the support given at present—will lead to service cuts and fare increases.
London Transport has argued that that could possibly lead to the loss of 6,000 jobs, or redundancies, at a total cost to the Government of £30 million merely to fund those people on the dole. At the end of the day, someone always picks up the tab, be it London Transport in the form of wages or the Treasury in the form of unemployment benefit. It must be recognised that one of the consequences of the Government's policy will be another increase in unemployment in London, which is already more than 350,000.
Transport users will be the second casualty of the Government's policy. The great majority of those who use London Transport—our our largest transport system—are women. They use it on their way to work, to do their shopping and to visit nurseries or hospitals. That is particularly so of low income groups who have no access to cars. The Opposition will also be pressing for a dial-a-ride scheme for the disabled, most of whom are also women.
The Secretary of State avoided the argument about concessionary fares, even though the Tory Government gave the GLC powers to enforce a uniform concessionary scheme on all the boroughs. If the right hon. Gentleman


takes over those powers when the GLC has been abolished, he should grant concessionary fares, as many local authorities are not prepared to consider introducing such a scheme. The GLC was given power to enforce a common scheme. The Secretary of State cannot escape from his responsibilities. I shall give him the opportunity to reassure Londoners who depend on free passes that, whatever happens, they will still have concessionary travel passes. If that is said tonight, it will end at a stroke the uncertainty about concessionary and free passes being made available to pensioners and the disabled in London. Presumably, we shall hear little enough about that, but let us recognise that that responsibility lies clearly on the Secretary of State.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that no Conservative-controlled GLC would ever concede a change in the scheme? It would not be able to stand it at election. The only way for the Secretary of State to break the pensioners' scheme would be to give the option to some of the boroughs, which might introduce it.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is right. According to reports that we have had, leaders of several local authorities have talked to the Secretary of State about their press statements on concessionary schemes. I do not know whether those reports are right, but they make it clear that local authorities do not foresee the introduction of the sort of free pass or concessionary schemes that pensioners currently enjoy under the GLC. The Minister could end that uncertainty by taking over the current transport responsibilities of local authorities and making it clear that free and concessionary passes will be made available for Londoners. Those concessions are paid for by a precept on the rates. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that he will put a precept on the rates. He can end the uncertainty, but he does not seem prepared to do so.
The Secretary of State believes that he can reduce public expenditure, and hopes that fares will not increase, because of greater efficiency and privatisation. Some improvements have already been made, and no doubt services will become more efficient. We must see what happens. However, when he said that privatisation is the way forward because it will bring new services to commuters and other transport users in London, I was reminded of the Transport Act 1980, which privatised many of the national coach services.
The Government launched the British coach network, with coaches painted in the union jack colours. The then Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for Social Services, waved off the first buses from Victoria coach terminal, and announced a new era in transportation.
That venture collapsed within 18 months, because the National Bus Company out-competed its services. That was not done without some cost. The Natonal Bus Company had to withdraw services from rural areas. There was greater competition on inter-city coach routes. Even British Rail's inter-city network suffered increased competition and was undermined. The community was far worse off after privatisation.
The way to manage a modern, integrated public transport system in London is to strike a balance between the social objectives, including the needs of Londoners, and the desire to achieve them at reasonable cost. The

social consequences of congestion, service cuts and road accidents, and the need to provide mobility for all at different times of the day, must be judged by the citizens of London, especially as they will be taxed for that privilege.
The decisions are essentially political. The regional service that is to be provided should be a function of local authorities, not the Government. The Secretary of State has an unbelievably touching faith in Whitehall when one appreciates that the Bill imposes a rate precept and makes Whitehall the master. The Bill sets the financial targets, determines the level of public support — hence the services provided—and gives the Secretary of State the power to direct, if he disagrees, and to privatise.
The London Regional Transport Board is to be appointed by the Secretary of State with a remit not to "consider" but to "take regard of the needs of London. The 1983 Act required the GLC to produce a three-year plan, saying that a massive amount of information should be made available by the GLC for the Secretary of State's Department. However, the Secretary of State does not impose the same requirement on London Regional Transport or Whitehall to produce a report to be discussed in public. The only obligation on Whitehall and LRT is to produce a report from time to time. That is not the same obligation as he imposed on the GLC through the 1983 Act. Having given the power to his Department, the Secretary of State does not want to give the information that apparently he required of London Transport when it ran the system.
The conversion of the Secretary of State to the nationalisation of Whitehall is amazing, particularly when one bears in mind some of his arguments in articles on nationalisation—that it was a bastion of union power on a feather bed provided by the Government. All those rhetorical flourishes came out in the right hon. Gentleman's articles. The conclusion of one of the articles that he wrote in 1977 was:
What is needed is a new system altogether, a system fit for a more affluent society of more responsible people, and smacking less of 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best.' We know now that he does not.
There has been an amazing conversion of the Secretary of State. In the Bill he is doing precisely what he said was wrong in 1977. Apparently what he is doing now is relevant for Londoners. He should read some of his articles when he now talks about his faith in the efficiency of Whitehall. He talks as if Whitehall has no political influence, but coming from the Treasury, as the Secretary of State does, he knows all too well about its power and influence on local authorities and so on.
Why has the Secretary of State chosen that road? I think that it is primarily because he wants political control to set the standard and to determine the resources that he gets. He wants to acquire the political control that he so often condemned in the mid-1970s when he was out of power. The Secretary of State's justification for some of his actions, given in the White Paper and in statements today, is to quote the Select Committee on Transport. I believe that he read only the first page of that report, or completely misrepresented its case. It said that London Transport should be a national priority. That is why there was the suggestion of handing it over to the metropolitan authority. The Select Committee made it clear that we need a modern transport system and low fares. It also made it clear that


the system should not be handled by the Department of Transport. In its fifth report, in paragraph 6.10, the Committee stated:
such a transfer of responsibility would be a major departure from the British tradition of local authority involvement in transport matters, and we do not believe that the transport problems of London are so acute as to justify depriving London's elected representatives, and London's electorate, of a major role in transport decision-making for their area.
The Secretary of State might have read the first few lines of the Select Committee's report, but he read no further than that.
In another part of the report, the Committee set out the general objectives of London Transport. One was that 
local government should retain a major role in transport planning and policy decisions".
The Secretary of State should not use the Select Committee to try to make the Bill respectable. The Secretary of State for the Environment, presently thinking of streamlining the cities, also made it clear in 1979 that the GLC's transport and strategic functions should be kept as one, so there was a need to retain it. His mind has changed quickly in the past few years. Some of the reasons given for the Bill cannot be established. All the political parties in the GLC deplore the action that the Secretary of State for Transport is taking today in removing political control of London Transport. The poll to which I have referred shows that the electorate also thinks that.
It is far from clear how ratepayers will be affected. It is assumed that they will somehow enjoy a saving. The two documents, which I acquired on the day that the Bill was published, showed that the ceiling on the cost to the ratepayer would be raised from 50 per cent. to today's 66 per cent. That is no coincidence. It is clear that ratepayers might have to pay considerably more for the new transport system than was originally envisaged.
If the Minister has not calculated the size of ratepayers' contribution, I can enlighten him, as an official in the GLC—not a politician—has compiled a report which spells out all the detailed expenditure. I shall leave the Minister to examine that document so that he can learn exactly what ratepayers will be asked to pay. I do not have sufficient time to give all the figures now. We shall do that in Committee. It is clear, however, that the ratepayers' contribution is likely to increase as a result of the Minister's policies, especially if this means that the present penalties of £30 million are to continue under the LRT.
The transport system which the Secretary of State envisages will be supported to the tune of about £125 million. If public support is reduced by about £90 million, which is provided by the GLC there should be a reduction in the ratepayers' contribution. In reality, however, there will be no such reduction. Last year, the GLC achieved a surplus of £30 million because of greater efficiency, productivity and a larger return on the travel card. At the moment, that money goes back to the GLC and therefore to the ratepayer in the form of a lower precept. I am alarmed that the Ways and Means resolution provides that that money will go to the Treasury. I hope that hon. Members who represent London constituencies will bear in mind that that is what they will be invited to vote on later.
We shall oppose the Bill tooth and nail. We shall not waste time, but we intend to examine every one of its 61 clauses and seven schedules in detail. The Bill will have the effect of increasing fares and reducing services. It will

threaten old age concessionary passes and put greater burdens on women, the low paid and disabled who use our transport system. It will increase unemployment and lead to more deaths, accidents and congestion. It will remove London's democratic control of its transport system and increase the cost to ratepayers by introducing a transport tax. It will produce a Whitehall-directed quango which will be instructed to observe a Treasury financial requirement which meets the needs of the Treasury rather than those of London's transport.

Mr. Edward Leigh: should like to take up the final point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about democratic accountability. Between 1977 and 1981, I was a member of the GLC and a member of its London Transport committee which is the main board on London Transport responsible for all policy decisions. I was al the centre of the issue about accountability.
When I first joined that committee I was a firm believer in the GLC having control of London Transport. Within about three years it had become clear that, despite the successes of the then Conservative administration of the GLC in other respects, the leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, admitted that London Transport was the most intractable problem facing the council. With the possible exception of the administration of Sir Desmond Plummer, now Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone, which took over London Transport after Barbara Castle had wiped off its capital debts, every GLC administration, Labour and Conservative, has failed with London Transport. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is still a member of the GLC, will agree with that.

Mr. Peter Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My intervention will give him an opportunity to examine his next point. I am sure that it will be just as interesting as his previous one. What is the unique peculiarity of London which makes its elected body, Tory or Labour, unable to run its transport system when similar ones are run by virtually every other large conurbation in Britain and by many other large conurbations throughout the world?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as he has put his finger on the central issue. The GLC was put in an impossible position by Barbara Castle through the Transport (London) Act 1969. It was given the same powers as most Ministers are given in regard to the running of nationalised industries, but the GLC, as the quasi-Minister in control of London Transport, did not have the authority of Parliament.
I do not blame the GLC, but for the past 13 years it has been caught in impossible circumstances. The Government have had control of the purse strings through the transport supplementary grant, the GLC has supposedly had control of policy matters but the London Transport Executive has had operational control. That has resulted in confusion and underinvestment, especially in regard to capital spending. To that extent, much of the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was irrelevant. Whatever view people hold about the need for injection of more capital into London Transport, the GLC, bearing in mind the limitations of its powers, has palpably failed to provide such capital.
The facts speak for themselves. Real unit costs have risen by 67·1 per cent. on the buses and by 47·8 per cent. on the underground since 1970. Fares rose by 85 per cent. in real terms between 1970 and 1982 and the subsidy increased threefold in real terms from £6·5 million in 1970 to £369·8 million in 1982. Under successive administrations, the GLC has simply failed. It now takes five and a half people to run one London Transport bus as compared with the three people who are required to run a National Bus Company bus and the one person who is required to run a private bus.
Whatever we believe about the need for more or less capital investment, there is no doubt that the GLC has failed—perhaps through no fault of its own—and that therefore London Transport must be taken out of its control if London is to have a satisfactory transport system.
Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 3 distinguish the Bill from the classic Morrisonian measure such as Herbert Morrison tried to introduce in 1933. As it is now drafted, the Bill puts insufficient urgency on the need for privatisation and competition. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 3 give London Regional Transport the power to enter and carry out agreements. It does not enforce a duty on it to find ways in which that might be done. I hope that the Committee will consider that.
Until today a sign has appeared at the front of Herbert Morrison's building—County hall—showing the number of London's unemployed. The sign has not shown the number of people who have lost their jobs caused by the monopoly practices of the GLC in forcing out free enterprise from London. The spirit of free enterprise can and must be regenerated in London transport. In pursuit of that spirit, the new bus company must regard itself eventually as a more regulatory and not operational company, overseeing the creation of new routes.
We have heard about the disgraceful GLC advertising campaign, especially the advertisement "Come in No. 9". I have lived on the No. 9 route for 17 years. I shall not be disappointed when that route—which has not changed for 100 years—is finally reformed and moves with the times.
Considerable success has been experienced in America by private operators providing new bus routes for shoppers and commuters and luxury buses, which we failed to persuade London Transport to introduce between 1977 and 1981. London Transport refused to proceed with the suggested changes. It is wedded to the existing routes, many of which have been in operation for 100 years and which no longer meet the needs of Londoners.
For too long the GLC and London Transport have been discussing the formulation of plans whereas only the consumer knows what is required and not the planners at 55 Broadway or County hall. We cannot reproduce in one mind that which the market forces create and recreate a million times.
London Transport is too producer-oriented and not oriented towards the consumer and the free market. If clauses 3(2) and (3) of the Bill are developed, we will create, for the first time in 50 years, a London Regional Transport Bill of which London can be proud.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough and

Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) as I, too, use the No. 9 bus. Perhaps it has not occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the reason why many London bus routes have remained the same in the central area is that the roads and the shops have remained the same. The No. 9 and No. 11 routes are prime examples. Those who do not understand that much of London's inner area transport is based upon a built-up area that existed prior to the motor car have misunderstood the issue.
I agree that it was not easy for the GLC to take over London Transport in 1969. In its earlier emanation as the London county council, the authority ran a magnificant and successful municipal transport service — probably the biggest tramway network in western Europe—under various administrations including the Conservatives who masqueraded by using the term "municipal reform", and who subsidised the tramways. In 1933 the London county council backed a Bill as a result of a deal between the powers in London, which gave municipal control to a public board, and the Croydon corporation and the West Ham corporation. The deal had great significance.
The Minister said that London Transport would continue, and when I challenged him he admitted that it would continue only in its legal sense. Paragraph 16 of Cmnd. 9004 entitled "Public Transport in London" states:
The Government has decided that control of the London Transport Executive should be transferred as soon as possible from the GLC to the Secretary of State for Transport. It will then be reconstituted on the pattern of a small holding company, with its bus and Underground operations established as separate subsidiaries. The holding body, which will be re-named London Regional Transport (LRT), will be responsible for the strategic control of its operating subsidiaries and for securing the cost-effective provision of bus and Underground services from these and other operators.
To do that will put the clock back to prior 1933. It will destroy the Act introduced by Herbert Morrison and passed by a Conservative Government and the arrangements between the municipal authorities, the trade unions and the shareholders who said "We have had enough of chaos in London. We will come together and create the London Passenger Transport Board." Should any Liberal hon. Members consider themselves left out, the Bill was finally piloted through the House by the right hon. P. J. Pybus, who was a Liberal member of the then national Government.
The Bill destroys an Act which had all-party support, which went through the hybrid procedure, and which created one of the best known public transport corporations in the world. I protest about what is happening because the people involved know little about public transport or the history of London transport.
The Bill purports to produce some form of integration. In 1912 the bus and underground services of the capital were integrated because the underground services could not sustain profitability as most of it was built on a promoter's trick. It was kept alive by the increasing bus services. Such was the position until the late 1960s. The bus services subsidised the underground. Since the underground has been carrying people to work and buses have faced competition from the car, the underground has supported the bus services. The Bill proposes to divide the two transport systems into two companies and to introduce private capital. I suggest that that is not integration but disintegration.
The Secretary of State said that the services of British Rail and London Transport will be co-ordinated. In so


doing, the Secretary of State will create another bureaucratic layer between the management of British Rail and the services for which it will be responsible into Victoria, Cannon Street, Waterloo, Charing Cross, Paddington and so on. The bureaucracy at 55 Broadway will be a new animal.
I wish to show how integration was effected before the war and could be effected again. It will not be effected by clauses 7 and 8, which refer to co-ordination. Coordination does not occur merely by the passing of an Act or by setting up a committee chaired by the Secretary of State for Transport. If the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends cannot do better than they did in dealing with concessionary fares for pensioners, I do not think that they will succeed in persuading the officials of British Rail and London Transport to work well together.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle that officials of London Transport and British Rail are not the easiest people with whom to deal. I have been criticising them for years. I understand, to some extent, some of the problems faced by Sir Horace Cutler and his successors in dealing with those at 55 Broadway. My admiration for Mr. Frank Pick, Lord Ashfield and Herbert Morrison exceeds my admiration for some of their successes.
Why will there be wholesale destruction of the 1933 machinery? There may well have been difficulties, but they were due not to the statutory provisions, but to difficulties of personality. It is the Bill's provisions that will cause the disintegration and problems. Let us consider some of the provisions. First, clause 6 puts an obligation on the new holding company to contract out as many services as it can. Secondly, there is an obligation to create subsidiary companies. Thirdly, there is a hint about the disposal of property. London Transport owns a lot of property, and I envisage many people licking their lips wondering how many houses can be built on spare land in the suburbs. Fourthly, there is a threat, which has hitherto not been mentioned, to the wages and conditions of those who are involved in public transport. They are not the best paid workers, and do not enjoy regular and easy hours. However, under London Transport they generally enjoy reasonable conditions of service, and a certain degree of co-ordinated recreational and health provision, which in its day was held up as a model. I do not see how those standards can be maintained when there is wholesale contracting out and a disintegration of the unitary services of London Transport.
Indeed, one of the reasons for contracting out is to reduce costs. However, all too often that is achieved by reducing the wages of those who do the work, and possibly reducing safety standards at the same time. There is an obligation on the Minister—I see her shaking her head—to tell us why that will not happen. Indeed, I hope that she will say today that it will not happen so that we can prevent the taking of steps in that direction.
Although the 1933 Act was not perfect, it was created by two men who should be mentioned on the day that their creation will be destroyed if the Bill is given its Second Reading. They both started right at the bottom. One was a grocer's boy in Lambeth, and the other was an odd job man and tram conductor in Detroit. They both became Members of Parliament, and members of the other place. They both served in Cabinets in two world wars. It was they who created London Transport. Of course, I refer

again to Herbert Morrison, later Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and to Albert Stanley, who became Lord Ashfield.
In the years up to 1933, those men managed to get together the diverse interests of the shareholders in the then so-called combine of the underground group, and the big municipal operators of the LCC, West Ham, Croydon and so on. Although they were aided by others, it was through their efforts and largely as a result of the personalities that London Transport, as we know it today, was created.
I understand that I can quote a speech from the other place, as it was not made in this Session. In his maiden and only speech in the other place on this issue, Lord Ashfield spoke about fares. There were fears that when the London Passenger Transport Board was created fares would be increased to meet the requirement to pay off the shareholders. Lord Ashfield said:
the group of companies over which I preside has been based, firstly, upon what may be described as low fares—in any event, fares which have a direct relation to the economic position from time to time—and secondly, upon the provision of a service which attracts the maximum number of riders. It is a policy of low fares and (shall I say?) an efficient service which brings the largest measure of success.
That is in tune with what the GLC's administration says today.
In his peroration, Lord Ashfield said:
It is only by complete fusion of all the interests concerned in this area and by establishing a common management which will have a common policy, directed towards the proper and orderly development of this great system of transport, that it will be found possible to provide the facilities the public require." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 1933; Vol. 86, c. 1004–7.]
Those two men were born in this country, although one of them emigrated to north America but later returned. They both ended up on different sides of the House. They put together some of the better aspirations of both parties to create a model organisation that may have seen better days than at present, but which at least formed the basis of a fused and integrated administration of public transport. That is now under threat.
The Bill has little to commend it to Londoners. It breaks up an organisation that was founded 50 years ago, and despite some recent criticisms it has been held up as a model worldwide. Despite the legal shell, London Transport as we know it today will be broken up into a pattern similar to that which existed prior to 1933, and even prior perhaps to 1912 when pirate buses were rampant. The pattern may be Victorian, but the finances will not be. Any short-term profits that are obtained by those who lend money to the new contracting companies or who become contractors to London Regional Transport will be made from passengers' fares or from the subsidies that are compulsorily provided out of the precept on the rates. Profits, in the Victorian sense, do not exist.
In 1933, Lord Ashfield wanted fusion, but this Bill will bring only confusion, and it will not work.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has given us an absorbing discourse on the history of London Transport. Indeed, I could go back even further than he did. My constituency was built on a firm foundation of good public transport. In the latter part of the 1850s Beckenham was a hamlet of about 2,000 people. However, there was a


tenfold increase in the population in the 30 years that followed the arrival of the trains. Since then, my constituency's prosperity has been wholly dependent on good transport links to the centre of London.
In the past 20 years, under successive Governments and administrations at County hall, the quality of the service provided by public transport in my constituency has steadily deteriorated and become ever more costly. We have never had, and never will have, an underground railway system. Our commuter trains offer a constantly diminishing service, while the local bus service is a source of constant complaint.
I welcome the fact that when the new transport executive comes into being there will be greater coordination between British Rail and the managers of London's buses. That will help with one specific but important point. Over the years, we have had a steady cutback in late night and weekend rail services. When I first became the Member for Beckenham we had such good late night services that a large number of members of the NGA came to live in my constituency. Over the years those late night services have disappeared. There can be no doubt that if the managers of British rail were to have their way there would be still further cutbacks in all the services provided at the weekend and after the evening rush hour had come to an end. The managers make the valid point that when one is dealing with a small number of passengers using a specific service it is cheaper and more convenient to carry them by bus from station to station, using the road rather than rail.
If and when there are cutbacks in the remaining late night services to my constituency, I hope that there will be a proper co-ordination with those who manage London buses to ensure that there is a provision of a bus service or a minibus service. I do not believe that improved coordination between the bus managers and British Rail managers will provide us with as many dividends as some of my colleagues would like to think.
The problems facing the London and south-east commuter rail services are well summed up in chapter 7 of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission presented to Parliament in October 1980. Paragraph 7.36 said that on average, by division, drivers spent 3–6 hours per eight hour shift or 45 per cent. of the time actually operating trains.
It said:
Our analysis of work programmes for individual depots has shown that most crews allocated to suburban services are at or below this average.
Improved co-ordination will not affect this, which is the central problem of productivity. I should be glad if the Minister who is to reply would tell us whether any further checks have been made since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on productivity in the London and south-east commuter services was published and whether that productivity has improved.
The major benefit that will flow from the Bill for my constituents is the potential that will soon open up for partnership between public transport and private enterprise. The public bus service in my constituency is wholly inadequate, and in much of suburban London. Of course, it is a difficult problem. I am aware that the spread of use of the private car has done much to damage bus services in the suburban areas, but one third of my

constituents do not have cars. Part of this problem has been met by the proliferation of minicab companies, which are the unsung and largely unmeasured heroes of suburban travel. I believe that a middle way should be available to the suburban public — halfway between the few lumbering buses which run from one traffic jam to another and the flexible but expensive minicabs. This gap can best be filled by the widespread use of minibuses, which I have recently seen in operation in Hong Kong, where they carry about 10 per cent. of the passengers who use public transport.
Recently an application was made to London Transport to start a minibus service in London. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss the merits of that application, but London Transport's reaction was an automatic reflex action. It was opposed to the application and it was opposed to competition. I hope that the new London Transport Executive that will be formed after the Bill is enacted will encourage potential operators to develop workable schemes for the introduction of minibus services.

Mr. Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend mentioned the Amos inquiry. In fairness to London Transport, it appointed an independent inspector to hear the Amos inquiry—a solicitor completely independent of London Transport—who found that the statistics and facts given to him at the hearing were little better than works of fiction.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I am not here to defend the Amos application. All I am suggesting is that minibuses can provide a valuable service in the suburban London area and that it would be helpful if London Tranport, instead of opposing applications because it does not like the Amos figures, were to encourage other people to enter the field. I hope that the new executive will look on the private operator as a partner and as a provider of scarce capital equipment rather than as a competitor who must be resisted and thwarted at every turn.

Mr. Prescott: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any other business, public or private, which would invite a competitor to join it knowing full well that that competitor wished only to be involved in the most lucrative parts of the business and would wish to keep the profits from those lucrative parts of the original business for himself rather than put them into the common pool and share them?

Sir Philip Goodhart: That is precisely the attitude that I hope the new executive will not take. One will see private enterprise operators not as competitors who are trying to scoop off the cream at the top of the bottle but as true partners who can bring new capital equipment to those parts of suburban London where there are no adequate services at present and where London Transport can hardly be called a competitor because the services do not exist.
Finally, I should like to deal with the issue of concessionary travel for pensioners. Like many of my colleagues, I have received scores of coupons about concessionary travel for London's pensioners. They were sent as part of an expensive scare campaign whipped up by the GLC. Politically I deplore the waste of money involved, but I am not frightened by the coupons. Indeed, to some extent, I welcome them because history shows that when scare campaigns are whipped up without foundation they tend to rebound upon those who start them. There is


no doubt that the scare campaign has worried many pensioners. I hope that we can quickly put their fears at rest.
The Minister of State made a speech on 28 November and my right hon. Friend used similar words this afternoon. The Minister of State said:
The London Boroughs Association has agreed in principle to work out further details of the scheme for concessionary fares and to put forward proposals. This is not something which can be done quickly, but the London boroughs have two years in which to devise a workable scheme.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State and her colleagues to do everything possible to tell the London Boroughs Association that they do not have two years to bring forward a scheme and that the sooner they get on with it so that reassurances can be given to pensioners in our capital city, the better it will be. I believe that the Bill should not be an object of fear to the inhabitants of our capital city. It should give hope for better transport.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) whose constituency is associated with Bromley. I wonder what the reaction of Bromley will be to his views on concessionary fares. The Bromley council took the GLC to court over the "Fares Fair" scheme. I am not an apologist for Mr. Livingstone or the GLC, but that was one measure of which the GLC was proud. Even Sir Horace Cutler told me that he thought Bromley was wrong to take that line. More people returned to travelling on the buses. The number of passengers increased by between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. I am a regular user of buses in London, but I doubt whether the Secretary of State often boards a bus. I thought that a considerable improvement was made.
I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was elected to the GLC on a ticket which promised a great improvement in London's transport but it became steadily worse. It is a pity that the "Fares Fair" scheme failed.
My colleagues and I believe that the Government should never have asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Bill is ill timed, wrongly conceived and a recipe for muddle, meanness and ministerial incompetence. I have no doubt that the patronage and privilege of the current Administration will flourish, but for those of us who still have faith in local democracy it is a sad day.
I accept the need for further reform in local government, but we should widen its role, not castrate it. Surely we should have learnt from experience that the first step is to reform local government's financial base. Shortly and simply, we should implement the recommendations in Layfield, the committee set up in 1975 to examine the question of financing local government. It produced a full and detailed report which made sensible recommendations for local income tax and rating based upon capital value. Let us implement those proposals and reduce local government's dependence on central funding to about 30 per cent.
By all means, let us consider the roles of the GLC and the metropolitan and shire counties. My shire county considered a transport privatisation application only the other day. We wanted to encourage the scheme and finance it, but the applicant did not have a hope of

successfully running a service in the evenings for the people in the rural parts of the island. He could not make any money out of it. Money would have been poured straight down the drain. Exactly the same will happen to private companies in other urban areas. There may be some future in financing certain railway lines — the Gatwick line is a possibility—but I was brought up in north London and I remember trams and Tally Ho corner in 1933. Great strides have been taken since then but the Bill would turn the clock back. Trials will collapse and Londoners will not thank us.
I think that we should reconstruct local government in favour of regional authorities to take in health and other services, including transport.
We should elect councillors by proportional representation and so lessen the risk of appalling swings such as that which will occur if the Labour party ever returns to office. A Labour Government would reverse the Bill's provisions. God help the country if that happens. It would be a disaster.
Let us lessen the risk of sudden policy changes—the true reason for the Bill. That was confirmed In the Secretary of State's speech today. With an elected regional structure with up to 200 unitary authorities we would achieve what should have been achieved in 1972. The Government seem to be hell bent on destroying all local initiative and all the expertise of local government officers which goes with that and has been built up over many years. We should not forget the excellence and knowledge of people who serve local government.
Personally I would go further. This is my personal belief, not Liberal party policy. I would introduce a directly elected mayoral system for London. We need strong people at the top. London and much of local government need a strong leader with power and influence at the helm to get things done; to sort out the traffic in the metropolis which is a disgrace. Some Metropolitan police reckon that within two years London's traffic will come to a full stop and be jammed. We want someone to speak for London, support commerce and industry and do a great deal more. The anachronism of the Lord Mayor in the city with no powers should go, as should the leader of a council in whose choice the general public has had little say. Mr. Livingstone was never elected as the leader of the GLC. He was appointed after he got in.
The need today is for powerful personalities with the direct backing of the electorate to stand up to the bloated Ministries, with the benefit of finance and public opinion to support them. It is a waste of time to take a delegation to the Department of Transport hoping for a concession. One is kept waiting knowing damn well that one will achieve nothing. If the person who goes to the Secretary of State has the backing of power and finance, the red carpet will be put down and the Secretary of State will be at the door to greet him. That must happen if we are to have meaningful local government. With such a structure London could look forward to the future with confidence
The Bill puts the clock back. No one likes it. That is to be expected of Labour-controlled councils, but surely the Secretary of State should listen to the London Chamber of Commerce, the London Transport Passengers' Committee or the Royal Town Planning Institute.
In the Department of Transport's press notice on the Bill the Secretary of State is quoted as saying:
In recent years the level of political interference in London Transport has become intolerable.


The Bill is designed solely to allow the Secretary of State, who is nothing if not political, to take control of London Transport out of the hands of an elected body so that he and an unelected group can interfere with it as much as they wish.
Under schedule 1, paragraph 4, the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and other members of London Regional Transport—the body that will take over from the London Transport Executive. Clause 13 allows the Secretary of State to make a levy on the rating authorities to collect contributions towards the expenditure on LRT, the amount being subject only to the unacceptable negative procedure. We know how limited is our ability to change measures once they have been accepted by the House.
Clause 31 empowers the Secretary of State to give general directions to LRT on the exercise and performance of its functions. Clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State to direct LRT to form subsidiary companies with a view to disposing of them. In short, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to appoint the board of LRT, to tell it what to do, to make LRT sell parts of its operations and to decide the level of the rates raised to help pay for it. That amounts to wholesale political interference by the Secretary of State in the affairs of London and Londoners, and it must be condemned.
The Secretary of State made a controversial and unconvincing speech. Other Tories have a more realistic approach. For example, Mr. Alan Greengross, the leader of the Tories on the GLC, recently said:
the Conservative Group believes that to run LT in isolation from local government would be a retrograde step. In the end, no city can or should operate a public transport system without a proper input of directly elected members to represent, as closely as possible, the interests of those we are serving.
The Bill fails totally to do that. It breaks the link between local services, local taxation and local democracy. No longer, for example, can the tag, "no taxation without representation" be applied to London's ratepayers. Rather than abolish or reform the rating system, as the Conservatives have so often promised, the Bill will complicate it further, and take a substantial swathe of the rates out of the scope of direct local accountability.
The new LRT will be almost wholly unaccountable. Its finances will not be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It will be almost impossible to find out about LRT's operations via parliamentary questions. It is hard enough to find out about British Rail via the Table Office. Hon. Members must probably be satisfied with an annual one and a half hour debate on the level of rate precept, with a few minutes in the yearly London debate, and the LRT annual report. The total absence of local accountability and the tenuous level of national accountability are perhaps the overbearing objections to the Bill. However, they are only marginally more objectionable than some of its other features.
There is also the issue of concessionary fares for pensioners. The Bill will abolish the overall scheme which is at present administered by the GLC and replace it with a system of "borough option". At best, that is a recipe for chaos, and it is almost bound to lead to some pensioners having concessionary fares withdrawn merely because they happen to live in the wrong borough. I remind hon. Members who might not be members of local authorities that local authorities are having trouble in keeping within expenditure limits so that they do not incur penalties.

Local authorities, especially in rural areas, cannot provide concessionary fares because they do not have the necessary money.
The vast majority of local authorities, whether Conservative, Liberal or Labour controlled, try to follow Government guidelines. We know that there are exceptions. If local authorities follow the Government's guidelines, they probably cannot provide concessionary fares—no matter how much they may wish to do so—because of Government demands. Again, the GLC Tories have a clearer grasp of the issues than the Government. Greengross said:
The GLC took over the scheme in 1973 specifically to ensure a London-wide approach. That is needed as much today as ever.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked about the disabled and the GLC-funded dial-a-ride service. People in my constituency have been trying to help the disabled, but that is very difficult. What is the definition of "disabled"? People in my county are trying to devise a scheme with British Rail and the Sealink boat service to ensure that concessions are given to the genuinely disabled. The dial-a-ride scheme has much going for it, and it would be a great pity if it were lost.
It is vital that we move towards a more integrated system of timetabling and organisation, with through tickets and so on. Only a start has been made in that direction. That is a typical example of a total mess-up. The Bill merely contains reserve powers in clause 45 to integrate LRT with British Rail, although the financial implications remain unclear. The Bill, therefore, misses a golden opportunity to deal firmly with this important issue. Add to that the proliferation of independent bus companies, which the Bill endorses, and a truly integrated system is further away than ever. We shall return to the pre-1933 conditions.
Another worrying aspect of the Bill is that it allows the Secretary of State to retain any surplus generated by LRT if it appears to him that the surpluses are not needed for its business. That conjures up two dangers — the Secretary of State failing to invest adequately in London's transport, and the Government forcing up fares as a form of hidden tax along the line of the recent gas and electricity prices.
The Transport (London) Act 1969, which established the current arrangement, requires the council and the executive to promote services which meet London's needs. That strong public service obligation is badly watered down in the Bill. Clause 2 specifies that LRT—which, by the direction of clause 31, must take the advice of the Secretary of State on matters of overall policy—need only
have due regard to—

(a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and
(b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation."

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which transport needs are met by appointees of the Secretary of State is similar to the way health needs are met in the Health Service where appointees of the Secretary of State for Social Services have a casting vote? They have just done that in north Southwark and Lewisham in deciding to cut services by 180 beds in Guy's hospital. The sole nominee on the health body took a decision in the "interests" of the service—that is the definition—when the democratically elected members of the authority to a person made a


contrary decision which might involve conflict with the Government. That is a recipe that has been a disaster in the Health Service, and it is now being propagated for transport in London as well.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It is not, I regret, likely that as part of their recipe the Government will at some time try to bring the health authorities under local government control. That is a bit of a forlorn hope at the moment, but I trust that it will come. It is certainly something that we want to see happen in a regional elected authority.
Although we welcome the integration of London Transport and the British Rail consumer affairs boards, the total lack of powers given to the resulting board is to be regretted. Its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and so will not necessarily represent London. Judging by some of the appointments to the water authority, that is likely to be the case. The board's members will be unable to consider changes or the reduction or closure of services. The body will hardly have sufficient power or status to compensate for the lack of democracy in the rest of the Bill.
The Bill is motivated by a desire to abolish the GLC, not to improve London's transport provision. There can be no doubt about that, judging by the first part of the Secretary of State's speech. London Transport is not overfunded, as some would like to make out, and the figures make that clear. London Transport's subsidy is about 37 per cent.—the Secretary of State said about 38 per cent. The subsidy in New York is 72 per cent., in Milan 71 per cent., in Brussels 70 per cent., in Berlin 61 per cent. and in Paris 56 per cent. London desperately needs a decent transport system, subject to proper democratic control. The Bill will make it almost impossible to achieve that control, and the sooner it is despatched to the dustbin the better.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Transport and traffic in general are probably the greatest problems that my constituents in Richmond and Barnes experience. There is no more sensitive issue than the hell that they have experienced from those twin miseries—living under the flight path of Heathrow, and living on the south circular road at the most inappropriate point. That road in no way serves the community or anyone as a ring road for London.
In our single lane, tree-lined avenues, juggernauts and double lorries thunder down causing pain and fear, and damage to the environment, and I must stray on to that point for a few moments. Lorries that thunder through my constituency coming from the Channel ports and going to the midlands or to the north have no business to be anywhere near that area. I am sure that when the M25 is completed it will make a difference to the level of lorry transport in my constituency. But we will need a proper London lorry management scheme to reduce the misery to a greater extent. It is not beyond the wit of man to introduce a lorry management scheme whereby those making journeys through London would be directed round London.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that such a scheme, desirable though it may be, is more, or less, likely to be introduced by London Regional Transport?

Mr. Hanley: I shall come to that. It may be thought that I am straying from the point, but I am not. There are two reasons why the roads of my constituency are so clogged—lorries and domestic cars. Often, there is a commercial necessity for the lorries to be there. That is why a sensible lorry management scheme must be devised with both industry and residents in mind. The nose-to-tail queues of private cars, however, do not need to be there. The average speed of cars travelling into and out of London is about 11 miles per hour, becoming slower as the day goes on as people less used to road travel take to the roads.
Why do people travel on the roads so much? Why is the traffic so solid? Why does it encourage people to leap into the side roads of my constituency to follow the antisocial, dangerous and immoral practice of driving rapidly down side roads to achieve a tiny time advantage? That practice is known as "rat running" and it could not be more appropriately described. So many people take to the roads because London Transport has let everyone down. How can we reduce the thousands of cars, many with just one person sitting in them, if there is no decent public transport system in London? The only way to rescue people from the misery of driving into London in the morning and crawling out in the evening is to get them back on to London Transport and British Rail. That is the real way to reduce traffic densities in the suburbs and in the centre.
Why do commuters not use public transport as they should? The reason is simple. They cannot rely on the transport provided. They cannot rely on the frequency of trains. There is no guarantee that buses will be at the stops on time or that they will not be full. People cannot even budget in the knowledge that fares will be consistent over the year. They do not know whether fares will go up or down. Strikes occur far too often with no warning whatever. We often hear on London Broadcasting Corporation that a tube train may be cancelled due to staff shortages in an area in which there is supposed to be unemployment. The commuter therefore opts out of the risks of public transport.
For far too long public transport has been a political battleground, the fares being used as weapons of war and the services as ammunition, the expendable front-line troops being the poor old commuters who increasingly believe in conscientious objection and desert the field of battle in their thousands. That is not cowardice. It is common sense.

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman can tell us of one rush hour train passing through his constituency without passengers standing in the aisles or of one bus that is empty in the rush hour, not only the House but London Transport will be delighted to hear about it. Commuters are not voting with their feet. Without greater investment in the passenger services there are simply not enough passenger-carrying vehicles to go round.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity later to explain why traffic in London is the worst that it has been at any time since the war.
The "Fares Fair" fiasco led to a massive increase in London rates. Thousands of pensioners with free bus passes found their rates bills increased by £60 or £70 to finance reductions that meant nothing to them. Meanwhile, people travelling into London from outside the GLC area found that their fares were slashed but that


their rates did not alter by a penny. Where is the fairness in that? Moreover, within a few weeks the fares were doubled again.
I believe, as I know all hon. Members believe, that reduced fares would bring more people back to London Transport, but the subsidy must be spread generally and not selectively among those who use London Transport, because it is a national asset. I welcome the scheme in the Bill, although I should prefer the Exchequer subsidy to be greater than the one third suggested, but I believe that the London ratepayer has paid enough. Rather than reductions or increases in fares, we need stable fares, and in this context I welcome the statement by London Transport yesterday about stability for the next three years.
Another abuse in the past few years has been the way in which the GLC has used London Transport as a job protection scheme. Single manning should have been introduced years ago on the Metropolitan and City line. Wage rises and staff increases have been in no way realistic compared with the services provided.
The worst abuse in the entire political argument has been the cynical and vicious way in which the Labour group on the GLC has used pensioners by scaring them about their free passes. I have received more than 400 coupons and letters about this, all from pensioners who believe that they are to have their free passes taken away and full fares slapped on them any minute now.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the accusations made by Conservative Members against the GLC and the Labour party about scaring pensioners could be instantly dismissed by a statement from the Government guaranteeing that the free pass scheme now operated by the GLC will continue in its existing form when the GLC is abolished?

Mr. Hanley: I shall make my own pleas about that in a moment.
Instead of trying to save the GLC, which, with such schemes, daily proves the necessity for its abolition, the Labour boroughs should get together with the other boroughs to work out a sensible scheme for concessionary fares in London as a whole. Real progress might then be made to help pensioners. In this context, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for her statement on 28 November, in Mortlake, which helped greatly in redressing the balance of truth for pensioners. I am also grateful to her for her efforts in London generally. We are lucky to have such a Minister.
I hope that extremely generous concessionary fares, with free travel for large parts of the day, will be granted by local authorities. I shall certainly press for that in my own borough, as it is one of the most important ways to keep elderly people active, alert and part of the community. I was grateful, too, for the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about how difficult it is for some councils to keep within the limits of the money that they have to raise and to spend. Members of his party never advanced that argument before they took control of my borough. They simply demanded free fares. I now demand free fares from them.
If the Government allow local authorities to operate generous concessionary fares schemes, this should not come out of grant-related expenditure such as social service funding for the elderly. If concessionary fares are

given with one hand but grabbed back with the other through the massive penalties that my borough would suffer, real misery will be caused to the entire population, including the elderly, of whom we have perhaps the highest proportion in London. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement about that, as it would help not only those in control of my borough council but people in general in the areas of greatest need.
Another area in which the GLC is to be abhorred for scaring the very people whom it claims to help concerns the posters to be seen all over London, "Come in No. 9, your time is up". When the Mortlake bus garage closed in the summer, I went with a delegation of bus workers to meet Dr. Quarmby at the London Transport Executive. I was greatly impressed by his professionalism, his business sense and his clear commitment to the community. He gave assurances about the continued existence of the No. 9 bus which, due to the closure of Mortlake garage, we believed might be in doubt. He asked us to monitor the change in services and, indeed, the data have been provided for him and, true to his word, he has reacted accordingly in trying to improve any deficiencies that we have spotted.
I must pay tribute here to many people in Mortlake, especially the Mortlake community association, for their tireless work in monitoring the bus system. I for one am prepared to trust Dr. Quarmby rather more than I am those who try to undermine the confidence of bus users. A poster such as that of the GLC can turn people off using public transport. It does not turn people on trying to save the GLC. It makes people frightened of considering using a bus. When this bus service exists and Dr. Quarmby says it will remain for the foreseeable future, we should trust him and the professionals. We should not trust the amateurs at the GLC.
While I welcome the great advice and interesting words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), I disagree entirely with what he said about the No. 9 bus. If the No. 9 bus has been there for 100 years, maybe it is because it has been needed for 100 years. It is needed now, and I want it continued.
The Bill is clearly a great advantage to the taxpayer and ratepayer alike to remove the wasteful duplication between British Rail and London Transport and particularly to set up a framework to allow closer co-operation with British Rail's commuter services. I wish that the Bill had gone further in the direction of harmonising British Rail and London Transport. I welcome the clauses to encourage competition of privatisation where it pays to do so. That is not dogma; it is simple responsibility and common sense.
As to the business principles and profit and loss referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is no longer in the Chamber, business principles in an organisation such as LRT are not concerned with profit and loss only. They are concerned with acting within the financial disciplines of the real world. Business principles in the real world mean stewardship, looking after the assets and not wasting money. They mean being prudent and avoiding profligacy. That is good business sense.
On the question of consumer representation, I hope that the new London Regional Passengers' Committee will be


drawn from a sufficiently wide area of representation to allow for proper consultation with bodies such as local authorities and local transport user groups.
I happen to believe that the 84 London Members of Parliament will feel that, with the Secretary of State's direct involvement, this Chamber will be the proper forum for making our constituents' views felt. In answer to the poster across the river, and I hope that those concerned have planning permission from Red Ted, which says that 90 per cent. of the people in London want direct involvement in discussing their fares—incidentally, the poll result on the poster relates not to saving the GLC but to direct involvement by the public—I believe that 100 per cent. of my constituents have a direct involvement through me to question the Secretary of State if any part of the Bill falls flat. That is direct involvement, that is elected responsibility and that is what I hope London Opposition Members of Parliament will feel is their role. I hope that they will not pass this down to their hacks at the GLC. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the hon. hack from the GLC.
If, therefore, following the Bill there is greater confidence in the professionalism and reliability of London Regional Transport, if the fare structure is at a level that people can afford and would be attracted by and is not subject to the whims of political shenanigans—the rise and fall that we have seen over recent years — if waste and efficiency can be routed out by fully professional management at all levels and if London Regional Transport can be run as a service to consumers on good business principles and not as a sinecure for its staff, people will flock back to it, thus reducing pressure of traffic on the roads, improving our tempers and our blood pressures and making London a happier and saner place in which to work and live.

Mr. Harry Cohen: There is an old story told of the time of the introduction of one-man operated buses. One of the buses crashed and the police were called to the scene. The police interviewed the driver and asked him what happened. The driver said, "I'm sorry, I don't know, I was upstairs collecting fares at the time." The Secretary of State for Transport is doing that in the Bill. He is picking up the pennies while London Transport heads for a crash. It really is pennies, because as The Times on 3 December reported:
Ministers indicated that their enthusiasm for ending municipal 'interference' in London Transport took precedence even over cutting public expenditure, an ambition the new system is unlikely to achieve for some time.
The article goes on to quote the Secretary of State as acknowledging that there will be no massive savings as a result of the Bill. That article which was written before the Bill was published points to the problems of privatisation and the extra costs that will result. The article in The Times explains the reality of the situation. The undue haste with which the Government have brought the Bill in is for purely political reasons, to set in motion their programme to abolish the GLC. It has nothing to do with the travel needs of Londoners. It is dogma overriding transport consequences, financial common sense and even popular opinion.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Does the lion. Gentleman accept that the spending by the GLC of £850 million of ratepayers' money, allegedly to defend London Transport, is also for overt political reasons?

Mr. Cohen: The GLC is pursuing its public duty in that respect, bearing in mind that the poll referred to showed that 90 per cent. of Londoners want the GLC to continue to have a say in London Transport and they do not want that democratic right taken away.
Government dogma in trying to abolish the GLC runs in the face of public opinion. Why else has the Secretary of State refused to publish the responses to his While Paper on the matter? The reason can only be because nearly all those responses were highly critical of the Government's plan.
There is no recognition in the Bill of the real problems of London Transport. London as a capital city has special needs. The twice-daily massive commuter rush hours affect London more than the provincial areas. Environmental factors must also be considered -inadequate roads, traffic congestion, and all the problems of travelling in central London.
There is no evidence that the present London Transport is not cost effective within its limited resources. London Transport's costs are obviously higher than those of provincial areas, for the reasons I have already stated. but that is no different from the situation in other capital cities. London does not get as much subsidy as other capital cities give to their transport systems. The real problem is a lack of investment in the transport system. That will be exacerbated by the Bill and the public spending cut proposed by the Government.
The Bill has been described as a mixture of nationalisation and privatisation. It is both at the same time. Unfortunately, it represents the worst aspects of both. On the nationalisation aspect, it represents the centralisation of power, with the Secretary of State not being properly answerable. The board of LRT will be an undemocratic and unaccountable quango.
The Tory-controlled Bromley council, which took action in the courts to stop cheap fares, when consulted about the White Paper, commented—
It is essential to secure some democratic representation on the board of LRT if ratepayers are to be able to exert control over services for which they will be expected to pay.
That was Bromley making a plea for democracy.
Hammersmith and Fulham councils—I am talking not only about Labour councils—in addition to making the same point about local residents not being able to excercise democratic control over decisions directly affecting them, pointed out:
Key information, as regards local aspirations and detailed background knowledge, will not be available at a policy formulation stage.
That is another factor in the democracy argument. The new board will be a quango under the control of the Secretary of State. Its members will be appointed by him. Although he has described the people he wants as being business managers, it smacks of the patronage that has resulted in other quangos being run by retired part-timers— old business men — on a huge salary at public expense.
The powers of the board will be under the direct control of the Secretary of State, who is even changing the law governing the operations of the transport system. Whereas at present there is an instruction to the GLC to meet the


needs of Londoners, the new board will have only to pay "due regard to" the needs of passengers. That represents a great watering down, because having "due regard" could be overridden by other factors, and those other factors will be at the whim of the Secretary of State.
Even the proposed consumer watchdog body will be a quango. The London Regional Passengers' Committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and on it will be no direct representatives of users, staff, taxpayers and ratepayers. Indeed, there will be no such representation on either of the boards involved.
The Bill extends to public transport the privatisation policies of the Government. It is proposed that there will be private buses on many routes, but that will happen only on the profitable routes. The competing services will curtail the revenue of the LRT, leaving less to finance uneconomic but socially necessary routes. The hiving off to private operators that will take place will make the duty on the LRT to break even further beyond reach. I do not believe that it can be achieved. The only way of trying to achieve it will be more cutbacks in services.
The Bill even makes provision for grants and loans to be given to private operators—direct handouts. On 3 December the Daily Telegraph referred to the possibility of the Government subsidy to the board being handed over directly to private operators.
One must not overlook the question of fare levels on private buses. The Bill refers to the LRT determining fare levels. Will the private operators be prepared to operate without having control of fare levels? Before long they will claim, "We run luxury buses. We have the best routes and therefore we are entitled to charge luxury fares." The wrangling will go on and higher fares will be the result. Services will decline as fares go up, and the number of staff employed by London Transport will be cut. The Government's cash limits on the LRT and the fragmentation of services that the Bill will produce will produce declining services.
There is a lack of an integrated public transport service, but, far from creating integration, the Bill will operate in the opposite direction. It will break up London Transport's business activities, with individual routes being privatised, the underground and buses coming under separate management and services, such as catering and cleaning, being hived off. That will not help integration. Nor are there any real proposals to integrate London Transport and British Rail. It will mean decline.
In addition, we have the divorce of public transport from other traffic and land use considerations. The strategic link with public transport will be lost. That was pointed out by the Tory-controlled Bromley council, which told the Minister:
Londoners would benefit from a transport network which was considered and possibly managed in its totality, including Underground, bus, rail and taxi services, with the maintenance and improvement of the main roads. In this respect, the Government's proposals seem to be particularly lacking.
The Royal Town Planning Institute added its voice by saying:
It is the Institute's considered view that the quality of public transport in London will decline.
The Bill will affect commuters and workers, who make up half of the 7 million passengers who travel every day on London Transport; it will affect women, who represent

two thirds of the bus passengers and who need buses for shopping and to take the kids to and from school; and, of course, it will affect the elderly.
The Secretary of State is proposing that ratepayers should foot two thirds of the bill for London Transport without having a say in the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman can easily alter the figure. Indeed, it went up from 50 per cent. to 66 per cent. between drafting and publication of the Bill. If the Secretary of State wants total control of London Transport, he should foot the total bill.
The Observer had an article on concessionary fares on 10 July—the weekend before the Government's White Paper on public transport in London was officially published. The first sentence of that article gave the game away. Presumably, the paper had had a briefing from either the Minister or the civil servants. The article said:
Free travel for London pensioners could be scrapped when control of the city's public transport system is transferred from the GLC next year.
My hon. Friends have asked a series of questions—I have asked three — requesting a guarantee that the pensioners' travel passes in London will be maintained, but none has been given. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 21 November—after a demonstration by 200 Leyton pensioners, which showed the strength of feeling on this matter—asking for a guarantee that during the lifetime of her Government London pensioners' free travel would be maintained. The Prime Minister replied:
The London Boroughs Association have now considered this and have agreed that on the setting up of London Regional Transport the boroughs should assume responsibility for concessionary fares on the basis of the existing scheme.
I was interested in that, because it looked as though we had our guarantee at last.
However, what is meant by
the basis of the existing scheme"?
If the Bill is the answer to what that phrase means, it does not mean that all London pensioners will keep their passes. It becomes a discretionary matter for individual London boroughs. If they wish to keep the scheme, they will; if not, they will scrap it.
Most London boroughs have financial problems. They have cash limits, constraints and penalties imposed on their spending by the Government. The rateable resources of the City of London and Westminster were used in the GLC scheme. The effect of keeping discretionary fares in nearly all the other London boroughs will inevitably mean a rate increase. That is the pressure that the Government are putting on London boroughs.
If the Government want to be a transport authority for London, they must face their obligations. They should write free concessionary fares into the Bill and pay for them as the GLC does. If not, they will be opening the door to charges for the passes, nominal fares on the buses for pensioners, or the introduction of a means test. The leader of the Tory-controlled Sutton council, who said that he favoured this, talked about a 60 per cent. per annum charge for a pass for some old age pensioners on the basis of a means test. That, too, means a restriction on the issue of passes — for example, only to pensioners on supplementary benefit. It could mean not providing passes at all. All those options are worse than the present system. The Bill is a dog's dinner in this respect, and London pensioners will suffer. There should be a legal duty for the passes to be maintained.
For years, London Transport has faced a vicious circle — poorer services, higher fares, heavier traffic, less


safety, back to poorer services again. The cheap fares policy was an attempt to break out, but the Bill will exacerbate and intensify that vicious circle. Public choice in transport service is a political matter. The Minister claims that he is taking it out of the realm of politics, but setting up a non-elected quango cannot take transport out of politics. The demand for accountability and a better transport system will only be intensified when the quango fails.
The Bill means that Londoners will have to pay, but will not have a say in their transport system. It also means increased fares, service cuts and an end to free travel for pensioners in many London boroughs. Londoners must hold tight until we get rid of this Government and get a Government who will defend and improve public transport for Londoners.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: When I was a small boy and harboured some theatrical dreams, I was advised and warned never to work with children or animals and especially never to follow a seal act. After listening to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) I suspect that I have done so. He performed particularly well — flapped his little flippers, jumped through the political hoops and even hopped in tune with the Left-wing tune played by the GLC in his praise of the GLC.

Mr. Prescott: We were saying this in 1970, before the GLC.

Mr. Hayes: It is clear where the Labour party stands today. It stands four square for the preservation of the GLC. The preservation of the GLC through the back door is what the debate is about this afternoon from the Labour party's point of view and well the hon. Gentleman knows it. The hon. Gentleman must face the political reality. He knows full well that in the not-too-distant future the House will abolish the GLC and then there will have to be another body to deal with and co-ordinate London Transport. What will the hon. Gentleman do then?
While on seal acts, I should mention the Liberal party. It is typical of the Disney world of Liberal politics that it should choose as its transport spokesman for London the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). Where is he, and where is the rest of the Liberal party? Are they hiding in their bunkers? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised one or two matters that amazed and mystified my hon. Friends and me. He said that London needed a man with power, vigour and authority. We already have that—we have Ken Livingstone. The Liberal party and its proposals, such as they are, are out of touch with the reality of people and commuters in London, as is the Labour party.
It must be appreciated that this Bill will take politics out of the London Transport system once and for all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) might like to know that my constituency is Harlow.

Mr. Cohen: I was looking at the Equity records.

Mr. Hayes: I do not have a card.
The Conservative party and its GLC members are not without blame, but the commuters are the people who have been suffering squalid and shabby conditions. I am a London commuter, and I know about this, as others do. Let us be fair about the "Fares Fair" policy. In theory, it

was a good policy. It benefited the commuter. It went wrong in taking money from the ratepayer. Many people suffered wrongly and unjustifiably as a result.
I shall deal quickly with concessionary fares. I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Leyton said. I want to repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport when she spoke to the Richmond Conservatives. She said:
The real issue is not whether there will be a concessionary fares scheme, but the type of concessionary fares scheme that the boroughs choose to operate in two years' time. The LBA has agreed in principle to work out further details of the scheme and to put forward proposals. This is not something which can be done quickly, but the London boroughs have two years in which to devise a workable scheme.
I emphasis what my hon. Friend said next:
Certain London boroughs have refused to discuss the issue. Brent, Greenwich, Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark have refused to discuss the creation of the scheme for concessionary fares"—
I emphasise these words—
because they are running a political campaign against the abolition of the GLC, paid for with ratepayers' money.

Mr. Hanley: There was a slight error in the press release. It was not a speech to the Richmond and Barnes Conservative association. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was addressing a public meeting. She does not need to speak merely to the party that she prefers. She dealt fully in public with concessionary fares.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that advice. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke with crocodile tears pouring down his cheeks. He said that people would become unemployed as a result of the Bill. How on earth can the Labour party honestly say that the Bill will cause unemployment? The boroughs that I mentioned a few moments ago that are raising rates through the roof will cause unemployment in London. One can go to Lambeth and Islington——

Mr. Chris Smith: rose——

Mr. Hayes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he undertakes to give me the dustbin for which I have been waiting for the past three months. I am one of his constituents. The Labour-controlled GLC, with its "Fares Fair" policy which in theory is good but in reality has been a disaster, has been raising rates.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the provision to him, as one of my constituents, of a dustbin will cost the local authority money? In spending money, it will incur the penalties introduced by the Secretary of State which will cost the borough and the ratepayers additional money. Does he accept that precisely the same will apply to any borough, such as the one that I represent, which attempts to introduce its own concessionary fares scheme? Will he address himself to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond arid Barnes (Mr. Hanley) about penalties which will be imposed on local authorities which introduce such schemes?

Mr. Hayes: I concede that what the hon. Gentleman said carries some weight. There will be a debate in the House in the near future on rate capping and targets. I make no bones about saying that the Government will have to review some of their ideas about targets and penalties. I agree also with hon. Members on both sides who have said that the Government should make it clear, despite the


extract from the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I read, that if in two years' time, for whatever reason, agreement is not reached in certain boroughs there must be some back-up legislation.
I want to deal with a matter raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who spoke so well about Herbert Morrison. Herbert Morrison would be turning in his grave if he saw how his transport undertaking had been massacred in the way it has been operated by the GLC. There has been waste and inefficiency. Even the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East must accept—I am sure that he will intervene if he does not—that there have been many problems and a great deal of inefficiency at the works in Acton. I am sure that all the readers of The Standard will agree with that.

Mr. Prescott: I should like to correct a point made by the hon. Gentleman. If he were to study the reports of transport debates back to 1970, when I became a Member of the House, he would see that what I said then about the principles of transport was the same as I am saying now. That was before the GLC came into force. He says that he has read The Standard. Perhaps he did not read it the other night when Mr. Bright, the London Transport chairman, said that 6,000 people will become unemployed as a result of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I hope that he deals with his briefs as a barrister better than he has dealt with the arguments tonight.

Mr. Hayes: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at last successfully looking me up in Dod and seeing that I am a barrister. I do not necessarily agree with everything else he has said, but that is another matter.
Let me return to Herbert Morrison and some of the points that the hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned about wages and conditions. He said that the Labour-controlled Greater London council raised London Transport wages in 1981 above the original proposal of 8 to 11 per cent. when the bus drivers had already accepted 8 per cent. If that is the sort of administration and efficiency that the Opposition want, it will be a sad day for public transport.

Dr. John Marek: What was the rate of inflation during the period to which the hon. Gentleman was referring?

Mr. Hayes: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the precise rate of inflation at that time. I was comparing the various awards. I was making the point that one set of London Transport workers had agreed to a lower figure while the GLC suggested a larger figure. That cannot be right or be in the interests of London Transport.
The Bill's provisions which concern me most are those which affect the commuters in my constituency who live outside the London area. They use the Central line, and there is terrible discrimination against the people who use the Central line beyond Woodford. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when setting up the new body, to take into account the fact that those people are paying way above the odds. Unless the Government give a commitment to help those people, the Bill will not be in the interests of the commuter or of a co-ordinated transport policy.

Mr. Tom Cox: This is undoubtedly one of the many debates that we shall have in the coming months on issues that affect London—transport, education and the future of the Greater London council. We know from experience and from what we have heard this evening from the Secretary of State that the Government do not have much interest in the issues that worry London. Their great delight is to use every opportunity when London is discussed to attack the GLC. We must return to the real issues of the needs and services of London and its people.
The hallmark of the Bill, which is utterly deplorable, is that elected representatives will no longer have the right to take decisions and then answer to the electorate on how those decisions have been taken. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have come from a background of local government. The Bill is eroding the understanding of local government held by hon. Members of all parties—Labour, Conservative and Liberal.
The Secretary of State, or his hon. Friend, should tell us what the position of Members of Parliament will be in regard to putting down questions or seeking debates on London Transport should the Bill become law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised the question of concessionary fares in an Adjournment debate recently. Will we still have that right or will we be told, as many of us are repeatedly, when we seek to find out from the Secretary of State for Social Services what is to happen to hospital services or local social services within the areas that we represent to take it up with the regional or local health authority? This happens to hon. Members, irrespective of the party to which they belong. Our questions are never answered and we are never in a position to challenge decisions. If the Secretary of State does not wish to answer that question, I hope he will ask his hon. Friend to answer it when she replies.
There have been many comments this evening about subsidies which are paid in various countries. I do not intend to repeat them. Hon. Members know what they are. Some time ago, when we were discussing the introduction of the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy, there were references time and again to subsidies paid elsewhere. Some hon. Members have studied in great detail the transport services not only in this country but in many parts of the world. They will know that if we are to have an efficient public transport service, not just in London but throughout the United Kingdom, it will come about only when meaningful subsidies are paid by the Government for the development of those services.
All we have to do is to consider the system in France — not only the Paris Metro, but the general railway system. It is prospering, and more and more people are using the services. We know of the efficiency of trains on the French railway network. French people will tell you that it is possible only because of the subsidy from the national Government, coupled with the general efficiency of those working on the railways.

Mr. Tracey: rose——

Mr. Cox: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak.
We heard the pathetic attempt of the Secretary of State to waffle his way through when asked specific questions about concessionary fares. It was interesting to note that


two of his hon. Friends clearly made it known to him that they did not accept what he was saying. Many hon. Members have said that it is all right, because boroughs will have two years to come up with an acceptable system. It should be remembered that there are 32 London boroughs with different attitudes.
I came into the House in 1970. One of the first things that I became involved in, along with other London Members, by questions and early-day motions, was to try to get the introduction of a concessionary fares scheme for Greater London. We had problems because of the attitude of some boroughs which did not want any part in such a scheme, but gradually we made progress. Problems arose about the times and the days of the week when people could use their passes. The GLC said that it could not tolerate such a system and that there had to be a system which was usable by all the people of London, whether they lived at one end of London or the other.
The Secretary of State would not tackle any of the points made about a meaningful concessionary fares scheme such as we now have in London. Some authorities say that they will introduce concessionary fare passes that will cost about £60 per year. There are very few people in my constituency who could afford £60 per year. Other authorities have said that they would introduce a means test. We know what problems that could cause. I understand that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has indicated that it will introduce a scheme, but only for people who live within the borough. What utter confusion that would cause.
I am a member, as are many hon. Members, of the all-party pensioners group. At meeting after meeting representatives from all parts of the country who come to talk to us about general issues of concern always ask when they are going to get in their respective areas a concessionary fares scheme such as exists in London. The Bill threatens the destruction of that scheme. The Minister knows what will happen if the introduction of a scheme is left to individual authorities.
I have seen figures. For example, the London borough of Harrow has suggested that it would cost more than a 5p rate to introduce a similar scheme. We know what the attitude of the London borough of Bromley would be. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that boroughs have two years to reach agreement on a scheme. We know what the record of the authorities has been. Their attitude has not changed.
There are London Members in the Chamber. Over the next two or three weeks, they, like me, will go to many functions where elderly people will be in attendance. I challenge Conservative Members to tell those people, "Do not believe the scare stories that the Labour party has been telling on this issue." No one will believe them, especially after the shoddy performance we have had from the Secretary of State.
Another matter which has not been given sufficient consideration is the dial-a-ride scheme. Some hon. Members may not be aware of what the scheme does. The scheme is funded, to its credit, by the GLC and it runs in many parts of the Greater London area. It provides transport for disabled people, who in many cases would not be able to leave their homes because they cannot use public transport. Buses have been adapted to take disabled people to any part of London to which they wish to go. In the borough of Wandsworth, where there is only one such vehicle, in the month of October it made 280 separate

trips. That shows how important this scheme is to disabled people. I cannot be the only hon. Member who is now receiving many letters from disabled people who are concerned about what will happen' to the scheme.
I cite an example to emphasise its importance. In the London borough of Wandsworth, 50 per cent. of all those who have used the scheme since its introduction are confined to wheelchairs. I need not say anything more. We all know how important and valuable such a service is to the disabled.
I understand that the scheme is to be funded only until March 1985. What will happen then? It is no good the Secretary of State saying, "Don't worry, something will be worked out." This scheme, like the concessionary fares scheme, was the result of much thinking and planning. Much opposition had to be overcome. Unless the Minister gives the kind of lead that we expect, both schemes will be destroyed and the people of London who need such services will suffer.
Conservative Members talk about privatisation, but the Opposition know what that means. It will be the same as selling council houses—the good houses will be sold off, and the poorer estates will be further run down and neglected. If London's transport services are privatised, the profitable services will be taken over and the others will be left to fall into decline.
Last Friday The Times contained an article on Norfolk. I accept that that is some distance away from London, but the principle is the same. That article stated that villages throughout Norfolk are becoming desolate and deserted because no bus service is available, and that has occurred because the local authority will not grant the kind of subsidy needed to ensure continuity of those services. Unless there is Government action, the same will happen to parts of London. London is an enormous area. If the good parts are privatised, the others, which many Conservative Members represent, will quickly have no bus services at all.
This is a crucial issue for London. This is only one of the many debates that we shall have in the coming months. Let us hope that Ministers with responsibility for other London issues will show more understanding than the Secretary of State, whose speech was a disgrace.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being called to speak on behalf of the ratepayers of Surbiton and the royal borough of Kingston. We heard much about London Transport in major speeches by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) from the Labour Benches and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) from the Liberal Bench, even though the Isle of Wight is some way from the metropolis.
The ratepayers of Surbiton are concerned about the present management of London Transport. Real unit costs have risen by 67·1 per cent. on the buses and 47·8 per cent. on the underground since 1970. Between 1970 and 1982 fares went sky high—up by 85 per cent. in real terms. The subsidy is up thirteenfold in real terms, from £6·5 million in 1970 to £369·8 million in 1982.
My constituents are interested in an efficient transport service, run on business lines, and they will welcome the Bill.

Mr. Prescott: What does that mean?

Mr. Tracey: The trouble is that the present GLC has turned London Transport into a political football. Following the affairs of London Transport has been like riding the former big dipper in Battersea park. Fares have gone up sky high, gone down and gone up again. We are now approaching the water splash, with scare stories from Opposition Members and people across the river about the threat to concessionary fares for old-age pensioners.
The GLC is simply concerned with scoring political points, hence the expenditure of £850 million of ratepayers' money——

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman should re-think that figure. It is £850,000.

Mr. Tracey: I apologise. The GLC has spent £850,000 of ratepayers' money on pure propaganda. It can be seen on street hoardings and comes through our letter boxes. Time after time there is propaganda and scare talk from the GLC about London Transport.
The latest piece of propaganda is that the GLC has changed the hoardings on top of County hall. For many months it gave the number of unemployed in London. Now — perhaps because it believes that it can score many political points—the GLC tells us that 90 per cent. of Londoners want a direct say in the affairs of London's transport.
I have investigated the slightly mysterious poll that emerged yesterday. I gather that 562 people were questioned. That information comes from the GLC's public relations officer. I prefer to take note of the views of my constituents and others in London as expressed during the general election, when the Conservative party made it clear that it would take steps to sort out the problems of the GLC and overspending on London Transport, but we are now suddenly told that we must take notice of 90 per cent. of 562 people.
We must now deal with the mismanagement of London Transport by politicians across the river, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. In 1981, a wage offer of 8 per cent. was accepted by London Transport drivers, but lo and behold the Labour GLC increased it. We are also told that the number of London Transport staff was increased by 500 when there was apparently no need for that to be done. The worst example of interference has been in recent times when purely political appointments have been made to the board. The chairman of the London Labour party was put on the board, although so far as I know he has no expertise in the management of transport, and a 25-year-old councillor from Brent was also put on the board, apparently against the will of the chairman.
I questioned the Secretary of State about that matter in the House. As I understand it, the chairman of the London Transport board should have been consulted, and his advice noted, before the appointment by the GLC. Of course, the GLC would not take any notice of the professionals, any more than it has taken notice of advice, or considered the true position, in relation to the appointment of the chairman of the London Transport Passengers' Committee. That is an interesting body, of which I was once a member.
This morning I received a note signed by the chairman, Mr. Nick Lester, saying that the committee opposed the provisions of the London Regional Transport Bill and setting out the ways in which it was opposed to it. However, the chairman did not mention that he is now on the staff of the GLC.

Dr. Marek: Opposition Members do not need any lessons about who is appointed to quangos and nominated bodies—Conservative members have packed quangos in the past four years with members of the Conservative party. Further, if the hon. Gentleman is worried about London Transport, the clear and simple solution is to wait until the next GLC elections, when the electorate of London will decide who is right or wrong.

Mr. Tracey: The crux of the matter is not whether the chairman of the London Transport Passengers' Committee is a member of the Labour or the Conservative party. The committee is supposed to be impartial and able to criticise the GLC and London Transport. I was making the point that the chairman of that committee is a staff member of the GLC. That is not right by anybody's standards. He did not declare his interest in the note that was sent to hon. Members. It is impossible for him to hold impartial views about the Bill or any actions of the GLC, which is his employer.
The GLC has also interfered in the affairs of the London Transport board. The board produced a three-year plan for the period beginning 1984–85. It contained proposals for sensible cost savings. Fares were to be kept constant in real terms, bus mileage would be reduced slightly and tailored to demand, and underground mileage would remain constant. Costs would be reduced by more than 9 per cent. in the period covered by the plan by means of a 2 per cent. reduction in unit costs and a reduction in bus mileage. It also referred to increased marketing and promotion of London Transport's services, and reduced levels of revenue support.
The GLC has yet again got its fingers into the affairs of the professionals on the board. It proposes to modify the plan in several ways. It wishes to increase bus and underground mileage beyond that necessary to meet demand. It is deferring extension of one-man operated bus services until what it calls a searching, independent appraisal of their advantages and disadvantages has been carried out. It is increasing the level of revenue support.
I do not need to give more examples of such interference except to say that, yet again, the GLC wants to interfere with hon. Members' opinions of the Bill. I have a bundle of papers that were sent by the director-general of the GLC, putting in summary form the opinions of various local authorities, the London chamber of commerce, and other bodies, on the Bill. The director-general refers us only to pages two and three of the bundle. One should not bother to read the other 100 pages. On pages two and three one finds the most slanted summary of local authorities' views. Those authorities gave considerable thought to their reaction to the Bill, yet their opinions are often summed up in a single sentence. The views chosen are those which appear most to lean towards those of the highly politicised GLC.
Together with my ratepayers in Surbiton and Kingston, I welcome the Bill, which gives a real opportunity for true liaison and co-operation with British Rail. In my constituency on the edge of Greater London, more services are provided by British Rail than by London Transport. It is important that the British Railways Board and London Regional Transport look to one head—the Secretary of State. That might allow us to look forward, as the London chamber of commerce wishes, to more co-ordinated ticket services for commuters and travellers in London, which


would benefit not only the ratepayers and travellers from near London, but the millions of people who come from further afield in the home counties, and even beyond.
Like many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), I welcome the scope for the privatisation of services, which would allow steps to be taken within the next few years so that the transport services of London could progress into the 21st century. There is no doubt that in many parts of London the present conventional form of transport is not entirely appropriate. Giving London Regional Transport the power and scope to privatise services would give many entrepreneurs a chance to come up with original ideas. That might allow us to make good progress into the 21st century.
The Bill finally brings us out of the localised political world of the people over the river at the GLC. We shall think national. London Transport will become part of the co-ordinated transport network that is so important to the home counties and London. Many Opposition Members have referred to France and other European countries and told us how the transport services are slick and efficient, but I remind them that in France the transport services are closely linked to the national Government. It is not the mayor of Paris, but the Government who run the much-praised Paris services. We are moving London Transport into the same sphere. The Bill takes us forward, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Bill represents a further stage in the Government's amazing fixation with the affairs of the Labour Greater London council. It is yet further evidence of their obsessive determination to eliminate that authority, whatever the cost in terms of local democracy, taxpayers' cash, good sense or administrative efficiency.
It cannot be a great secret that if County hall were controlled by almost anyone other than Mr. Livingstone the question of the abolition of the GLC would never have arisen, nor would we be discussing this Bill. For the Prime Minister and her blue-rinsed hordes in the home counties, Ken Livingstone and his colleagues appear to represent the end of civilisation as they know it. It is clear that all that is nasty, mean-minded and authoritarian in the Prime Minister—there is lots of it—comes to the surface at the very mention of the GLC.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No. There was a time, not so very long ago, when wiser counsels from Conservative Members would have prevailed. Gradually, such sensible and independent-minded people have been weeded out in favour of the Central Office clones and the chinless wonders who now give the Prime Minister the type of advice that she wants to hear.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: I shall not give way to that chinless wonder just yet.
The House is being told that the people of London are to be deprived of any say in the running of our transport system. We are to have yet another unelected, unaccountable quango, which no doubt will be stuffed full of loyal Tory business men who are on the lookout for the odd political honour. The proposal comes from a party

which, not so long ago, was talking loudly about giving people more choice at local level. It said that it opposed the idea of setting up quangos. The Government are now taking away local choice and setting up many quangos to replace the GLC. It is not the GLC's services that are being abolished. They will be taken up by quangos. It is merely the elections for the GLC that are being abolished.
It is not surprising that Conservative members at County hall are so violently opposed to the proposals that are being advanced by their colleagues here. There is no rational or economic basis for taking away control of London Transport from a democratically elected CLC. Conservative Members might not like the views and opinions of that democratically elected council, but they should leave it to Londoners to decide what they want at the ballot box in 1985. That is surely where the decision should come from.

Mr. John Powley: The hon. Gentleman has talked of democracy. Who pays the bills that the GLC imposes? How much say do industrialists and the commercial sector have? Are they not entitled to a say in who represents them and who imposes the bills on them?

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his late intervention. I wish that he had been here to hear some of the earlier speeches.
The ballot box must be the place where ratepayers and taxpayers make a judgment. Londoners should be left to decide whether the GLC is so appalling. If they want to kick out Ken Livingstone and put in Tories under Alan Greengross, let them do so. I would much rather County hall were controlled by the Conservatives than have the elections for that important level of local government taken away from Londoners.
The GLC's transport policy, which has come in for some criticism from Conservative Members, has been splendid. I am biased in that respect, as I still serve as a member of the GLC. Nevertheless, I remind the House that the Labour party won an election in 1981 and one of the central themes of our manifesto was the "Fares Fair" policy.

Mr. Hanley: Would the hon. Gentleman accept a poll on this subject of the Members of Parliament who represent the Greater London area?

Mr. Banks: I do not believe in selective and elitist forms of opinion makers. What is wrong with waiting until 1985 and letting the 7 million Londoners who are eligible to vote go to the ballot box and decide? I can only assume that Conservative Members are frightened that the Labour party will win the GLC election in 1985.
The "Fares Fair" policy was a significant part of Labour's manifesto in 1981. Conservative Members have conceded that the policy was popular. It worked. The GLC made a 32 per cent. reduction in fares. It was a great success for Londoners. Within a short time, travel on public transport increased by 10 per cent., and 6 per cent. fewer people commuted to central London by car. The social and economic effects of that policy were enormous. For example, there was less traffic congestion. I do not know whether Conservative Members are capable of remembering that far back, but there was much less traffic on the roads. Because of that, there was much less pollution and journeys in London were faster. That was


good for business, as people were able to get back and forth to their places of work more quickly. Perhaps most important of all was the fact that there were fewer accidents on London's roads.
All of that progress was put aside when Bromley went to the courts to challenge the GLC's policy. Much has been made of Bromley's argument which ran, "We do not have much in the way of London Transport out here and we do not like paying an undue share of the cost through our rates." Bromley council and Bromley's residents seemed to forget that the rest of us as taxpayers must pay an awful lot of tax to maintain the British Rail commuter system which serves Bromley and the rest of the south-east of London extremely well. We have not run to the Chancellor of the Exchequer complaining about that, insisting that we have our money back because we are subsidising ratepayers in Bromley who are using the British Rail service.
The Law Lords eventually stepped in with what can only be described as crude interference by politically motivated people to set aside an election manifesto pledge that had been fulfilled. Unfortunately, the Law Lords' decision created a great deal of confusion. The GLC was forced to double fares and in the 12 months which followed the decision there was roughly a 12 per cent. increase in car commuting. Moreover, 6,000 additional people were injured in accidents on the roads. That is not GLC propaganda, but the findings of an independent survey carried out by University college, which also estimated that the increase in the accident rate cost us all rather more that £20 million.
We are now reaching the point where local government is so strapped around with legal restrictions that every committee paper that appears in County hall and in many borough councils is carried by about three lawyers, all of whom seem to have a different opinion as to the legality of the proposal. The Government have done a great deal for the legal profession. In view of the number of Conservative Members who are members of the legal profession, I should have thought that they would be grateful to the GLC for that extra work.
After taking legal advice, the GLC was able to reduce fares by about 25 per cent. in May of this year and there has again been an increase in passenger use of London Transport. The signs are encouraging. For example, take-up of travel cards is excellent—it is far better than London Transport or the GLC anticipated. It hardly takes a genius to work out that cheaper fares will mean more passengers. More passengers travelling on public transport means fewer people travelling by private transport. That has a spin-off in terms of social and economic benefits for us all.
If we are to have a better transport system, more subsidies are needed. My hon. Friends and I believe that the money will be well spent. Several hon. Members have said that London Transport receives a proportionately lower level of subsidy than transport systems in most other European cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to Paris, as did several other hon. Members, as having one of the finest transport systems in Europe.
The system was largely brought about under the direction of Giscard D'Estaing, not a person noted for being a revolutionary Socialist. The French recognized

that an enormously powerful economic and social case could be made out for a heavily subsidised transport system which would deal primarily with capital and not just revenue. It provided the essential capital investment for an effective public transport system. The French understood the good social and economic benefits which emanate from a heavily subsidised transport system, as would anyone with an understanding of economics other than those aquired in a Grantham greengrocer's shop.
The enormous popularity of the GLC's transport policies in 1981 set the alarm bells ringing in Downing street. We heard talk in Government circles about the GLC using London Transport as a political football, an allegation made by Conservative Members more than once in this debate. The intention to remove London Transport from the control of the GLC is to make the case for abolishing the GLC more persuasive. If services are continually taken away from a local authority, the day will come when one can ask, "What is the point of keeping the local authority, as it has nothing to do?". The reason it has nothing to do is that its services have been removed. When the Tories realised how popular were the GLC's transport policies, it was important to do something about them. The result was the intervention of the Law Lords and the plan to take London Transport away from the GLC.
I do not understand why Conservative Members should get worked up about local politicians discussing and getting involved in politics. The attitude appears to be, "It is all right for us to take political decisions and discuss political matters, but no one else is allowed to do so. If local government becomes involved in politics—tut, tut, what a terrible day for all." I consider the hypocrisy and double standards of Conservative Members to be appalling.
The Secretary of State referred to the GLC's political interference in the running of London Transport. At the same time, he is proposing to take draconian measures against London Transport, the result being that we will be unable to discuss what is happening either in County hall, in London or in the House.
The fight involving the "Fares Fair" policy was not sought by the GLC, nor was the confusion which followed, which involved the dismantling of the policy which was said to have been caused by or was the responsibility of the GLC.
When references were being made to the GLC interfering in London Transport, accusations were also made about the over-generous subsidies to London Transport from the rates. We know that London Transport receives a proportionately lower level of subsidy than transport in most other European cities. The present London Transport revenue subsidy given by the Labour-controlled GLC is not inordinately out of line with that given by the previous Administration. In 1980—the last year of Tory control — the total revenue subsidy to London Transport was £117 million, and the sum this year is £175 million. The GLC is not profligate with its subsidy to London Transport. It recognises that massive social costs must be considered when drawing up a balance sheet for an urban transport system.
If the Bill is enacted, there is little doubt that the level of subsidy to London Transport will be reduced further, services will be cut, fares will increase sharply and neither Londoners nor Parliament will have any say whatever in the matter.
I wish to deal with two specific points in the Bill which are of great concern to Opposition Members and Londoners generally. The first is about the future provision of pensioners' travel passes in London. Ministers continually accuse the GLC of trying to frighten pensioners, but they have had opportunity after opportunity to relieve the fears of pensioners and to state that travel passes will not be endangered because the Government will do something about them. The Government have had ample opportunity to give such an assurance but have ducked the issue every time. Instead, Ministers have caused more confusion about what will happen to these passes should the GLC be abolished.
The Bill provides a wonderful vehicle for the Government to say categorically what is to be the future of pensioners' passes. Clause 48 refers to concessions for travel which can be made by one or more than one borough. The Bill refers to concessions, but does not specify old-age pensioner travel passes. Even after the Bill was published Ministers appeared to be quite unclear about the Bill's proposal. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), the Minister said that the London Boroughs Association had agreed that
concessionary fare arrangements…should become their responsibility."—[Official Report, 5 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 38.]
The Secretary of State, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), said:
I understand that the London Boroughs Association, at its meeting last Wednesday, announced that it would assume responsibility for the existing GLC scheme for concessionary fares.
However, on the same day the Minister of State read into the Official Report a letter from the LBA which stated that the LBA
considers on the setting-up of LRT the boroughs should assume responsibility for concessionary fares on the basis of the existing scheme."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 1–7.]
So, on the morning of 24 October, the Secretary of State said that the LBA would take over the scheme and in the afternoon the Minister of State quoted from a letter saying that the boroughs would assume responsibility for the scheme. Will the London Boroughs Association take responsibility for the scheme, or will it be the responsibility of the London borough councils? I remind Conservative Members that the London Boroughs Association does not have any statutory power to enforce a scheme. It can devise, agree or discuss the ideal scheme with the boroughs, but it cannot force such a scheme on the boroughs.
To judge from the Minister of State's remarks in the Adjournment debate on 25 November it appeared that the boroughs would be given such responsibility, but by 5 December the Minister appeared to have changed her mind. Ministers should not continually accuse the Opposition and the GLC of creating fear when the fear emanates from the Government.
As we are in the time of good will and Christmas is nearly upon us, I wish to assist the Minister by making several suggestions and asking for answers to specific questions. First, do the Government propose that the LBA should be responsible for pensioners' passes covering all 32 London boroughs, or will the responsibility be left to the boroughs? Secondly, do the Government intend to make the scheme compulsory? Thirdly, if the scheme is to be discretionary, what protection will pensioners have

against the possibility of boroughs individually opting out or introducing charges, or damaging the present scheme in any way whatever?
It is no good saying that the boroughs have two years in which to come up with a scheme. We already have a scheme that is operating efficiently, fairly and effectively. Everyone is happy with the old-age pensioners' travel scheme in London, so why interfere with it? The Government should just give pensioners and Opposition Members the assurance that the whole of that scheme will be maintained if the GLC is abolished. Although we have not reached the point at which the GLC has been abolished, the Bill provides Ministers with the opportunity to include such a provision.
We have heard about several Tory boroughs that have taken decisions, or are considering proposals to modify the pensioners' travel pass scheme if the boroughs are given responsibility. It is for the Government to make the position clear. If they do not do so, speculation and worry will continue. The Committee stage will provide the Government with an opportunity to make the position crystal clear once and for all.
I am also concerned by the total absence in the Bill of any reference to the provision of transport for people with disabilities. Hon. Members should note that I refer not only to the disabled, but to those with disabilities, such as the elderly and the frail who cannot stand in bus queues for a long time, or who cannot get out. Such people need to be collected. The right to public transport for such people is gradually being recognised, yet the Bill is silent on that. Again, the GLC has made tremendous advances in that sphere, and will be spending about £1·25 million in the current year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned the special dial-a-ride schemes. He could have gone on to say that these schemes now operate in 12 London boroughs and involve more than 6,000 users. Another form of assistance to those with disabilities is being organised by the GLC through a special black taxi pilot scheme. It allows those with disabilities to journey in a black cab for 50p per trip. I understand that it is the intention next year to extend the black cab scheme throughout London at a cost of £1·5 million.
Finally, there is the GLC's special adaptation programme for buses and trains to accommodate those with disabilities, and particularly those in wheelchairs. Thus, progress is being made in providing public transport for the disabled. Such functions are clearly London-wide responsibilities. They cannot be left to the boroughs. In Committee the Minister should ensure that the provision for such schemes to continue is written into the Bill.
The two examples that I have given, of the old-age pensioners' travel pass and the schemes for those with disabilities, describe the policies of the GLC to look after the elderly, the frail and the disadvantaged. It shows the great advantage of having an elected accountable regional authority for London Transport. Only a large regional authority can carry out such desirable social functions. The Bill is the result of the sheer political spite that has been directed at the Labour-controlled GLC. It makes no economic, social or transport sense. It represents one further attack on local democratic choice in the Prime Minister's squalid little continuing personal war against the GLC.

Mr. Tony Baldry: As a country cousin, I was slightly apprehensive about speaking in a debate on London Transport. However, I do so for two reasons. First, as the White Paper "Public Transport in London" recognises, London's transport is vital to the nation as a whole. Secondly, I seem to have spent most of this year, when I have not been fighting a general election, involved in one way or another in various public inquiries about transport in London and applications to the traffic commissioners under the Transport (London) Act 1969.
I suspect that I am going to say a few things now that will almost certainly guarantee that I shall not be asked to serve on the Committee and never again be invited to have lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs. I am concerned about the attitude of some of my hon. Friends towards privatisation and competition. The difficulty about privatisation and competition is that at first sight schemes always seem to be good news. The idea of having lots of minibuses running round the suburbs at cut rates would seem to mean good value for money. However, it is only when one gets down to the nitty-gritty and examines the scheme that one realises that there are two sorts of buses: those that run at a profit and those that run at a loss.
The buses that run at a loss in London do not necessarily do so because they are inefficient. One of London Transport's structural difficulties is that almost half of the 7 million journeys made every day in London are made to and from work. Therefore, during the course of the day there is an enormous double peak. The No. 9 bus seems to be the most popular bus, and, as it also passes the place at which I camp out when in London, at Olympia, I shall use it as an example. The No. 9 bus can leave Mortlake with a 100 per cent. load and be full on its journey into London during the rush hour. However, its return journey is quite different. Reports about the efficiency of transport in London rarely take account of such factors as dead running time. A 100 per cent. load may go into London, but the load returning to Richmond or Mortlake may be only 20 per cent., thus making the average far less than 100 per cent.
There is nothing that any road transport operator can do about dead running time. A service that enables people to travel from the inner suburbs of London to the centre will inevitably involve getting the buses back again, so there is bound to be dead running time. Therefore, the only bus services that people will want to take over and that will be attractive under clause 43 will be those that make a profit.
Having sat through day after day of inquiries, I am now intimate, I think, with every bus route in London. I have a little list of those routes that make a profit. Therefore, I declare an interest in advance. "Baldry Buses" may well be making an application to the traffic commissioners once the Bill is enacted. Several bus routes in London make a profit. For example, the Al runs to Heathrow airport and always makes a profit, because there is little dead running time. There are always people who want to go to Heathrow airport and there are always those who want to return. Thus, such buses make a profit, and those bus routes are very attractive.
However, there is a host of other buses on routes that will inevitably make losses, no matter how efficiently they are run, because there is no way that the cost can be covered. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will say that, under the Bill, applications will have to be made to

the traffic commissioners, which will bring those involved under the same provisions as are in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. That Act says that the traffic commissioners must grant a licence unless they are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public. That is a laudable sentiment.
However, I should like to draw the attention of the House to how that operated in one of the public inquiries that I was involved in. Most of the cases were brought under the Transport (London) Act, and as appeals have gone to the Secretary of State they are still sub judice. However, one appeal went to the traffic commissioners.
The traffic commissioners gave a ruling last Friday. No appeal has yet been lodged, so I think that I am at liberty to draw the attention of the House to the way in which the traffic commissioners interpreted the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 with regard to an application to run minibuses from anywhere in London to Gatwick and Luton airports. The traffic commissioners came to the following conclusion:
In view of the lack of detail in these open-ended, applications any measured assessment of implications for operators of other services is virtually impossible to achieve…. The Commissioners cannot say whether on balance they are satisfied or not satisfied that a grant of the licences would be against the interests of the public".
None the less, having said that, they then went on to grant a licence for a limited period of two years, having accepted that, even on the most modest of assessments, it would mean a loss to other operators of about £127,000 a year.
If we allow anyone in London who has a bright idea to run private bus services, we will inevitably ensure that they will go for the profitable routes which, in turn, will ensure that the losses on the loss-making routes are even greater. I must tell my hon. Friends that that is the conclusion to which I have inevitably been driven, having spent a large part of this year studying the problems of transport in London.
We seem to have been round this hoop before, not only in 1933, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, but earlier—in 1924. In preparation for the debate I read the Second Reading debate on the London Traffic Bill of 1924. It is sad that the Labour party has still not got a statue of Herbert Morrison sitting on its Benches, because at least he had the national interest at heart—[Interruption.] I shall be voting for the Bill.
Having heard the speeches of Labour Members, I am convinced that the GLC is not fit and proper to have control of London Transport. I sometimes think that London Transport should have control of London Transport, but that is a different matter.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is making a premature judgment. He has heard neither the Opposition summing up nor the reply of his hon. Friend the Minister of State. He might yet change his mind.

Mr. Baldry: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I doubt very much whether his views will have much influence on me, and I know full well, from previous speeches of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, that she will remove any doubts I might have about the Bill.
We have been down this route before. In 1924, the House was arguing the need not for disintegrated services but for integrated services. That was agreed on both sides of the House. The Conservative Front Bench spokesman at the time said:
The heart of the Bill"——


the London Traffic Bill——
the key to the Bill…is a power to regulate the number of omnibuses, having regard to the congestion existing in a road…It is, I think, a wise thing to have the power to stop that competition when it is not doing any good to the public."—[Official Report, 28 March 1924; Vol. 171, c. 1709–10]
What we must consider in transport in London is that words such as "privatisation" and "competition" are jolly good slogans, but they must be applied to the totality of what one is trying to achieve by ensuring the best public transport throughout the whole of the London area. If clause 43 of the Bill goes through unamended, there is a danger that it will simply open up a whole series of rag-bag applications to run a variety of private buses throughout the metropolis.
Lest it be thought that I am arguing a particular vested interest from a brief, I should like to make it clear that I was not briefed either by London Transport or by anyone directly affected by the Bill. I was briefed by the hackney carriage trade, which is the paragon of private enterprise, never receiving 1p of public subsidy. In every Second Reading debate of every Bill on traffic in London, whether it be the London Traffic Bill of 1924 or the London Passenger Transport Bill 1933, a number of hon. Members have asked why the Bill does not include provision for helping the hackney carriage trade in the metropolis.
It is one of the anomalies of transport in London that 17,000 licensed black cab drivers are doing sterling work within the metropolis but have no relationship with the Department of Transport. They come under the Home Office under various Acts of Parliament, which go back to the middle of the last century when hackney carriage drivers could be sentenced to hard labour if they abused their fares. The drivers, as a trade, are concerned that they have no relationship with the Department of Transport at a time when many bus operators and others are coming along wanting to take over bus routes and to institute new schemes. The cab drivers do not have the ability to come forward with schemes which they think might help transport in London, because they are limited by various Acts of Parliament passed in the middle of the last century.
I say to my hon. Friends that the Bill is worth supporting, but they should not be surprised if, under the banners of privatisation and competition, in the next couple of years a large number of people apply to the traffic commissioners for licences to run private bus services throughout London. Those applications may well have as much content in them as the original application that was heard by the independent inspector on the Amos inquiry—a solicitor from the west country, who had no vested interest one way or the other—who described the details put before him as little better than works of fiction. I believe that the people and transport in London deserve better than works of fiction. If we are to have competition and privatisation, we must ensure that any scheme which is introduced really is in the public interest. The evidence so far of the adjudications that the traffic commissioners have made under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, in so far as they have applied to schemes in London, do not give me much confidence that that is how the law will be applied.

Mr. Chris Smith: Logically the speech by the hon. Member for Banbury

(Mr. Baldry) should have led him to the conclusion that he should vote against the Bill. Unfortunately, he did not come to that conclusion.
The Bill is politically motivated. It is ill considered, rushed and fundamentally flawed. I shall briefly explain why. Lack of time prevents me from making all the points that I should like to make.
For example, the Bill removes any direct say about transport for Londoners except through this House. We know how indirect that say is. The Bill removes any direct say in the level of fares, service and operating schedules of London Regional Transport, as London Transport will become. The Bill adds to the unelected, unaccountable bodies which already impose taxation on Londoners, such as the Thames water authority and the Metropolitan police. The Bill grants enormous and worrying powers to the Secretary of State. For example, clauses 10, 31 and 45 dramatically increase the Secretary of State's powers, without reference to Parliament, to make directions on the disposal of assets, powers and functions of the London Regional Transport Corporation and British Rail without their concurrence.
I hope that the Minister of State will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment to the provisions in clause 28. Why has the Secretary of State for the Environment refused permission under the partnership scheme for the funding by the GLC and the borough of Islington of the bus route through my constituency which was much valued by my constituents until it was closed a year or so ago? My constituents have expressed great anxiety about the reinstatement of that service. The borough and the GLC are willing to contribute under the partnership scheme. The Secretary of State has refused to allow that, but clause 28 appears to provide for such an arrangement.
I shall concentrate on three main issues. The Bill represents a lost opportunity for the proper integration of transport services in London and beyond. We would all support a Bill which brought about integration between transport services within London and outside; that brought about a proper integration of rail, bus and tube services and taxis and hire cars. The Bill offers only the possibility of integration in the future. It does not offer that integration now because it has been rushed. If the Government had taken time to consider proper integration, they might have been able to propose a better co-ordinated transport systern for the capital and its surrounding area. The Bill does precisely the opposite to providing integration by encouraging and, in some cases, forcing London Regional Transport to privatise bits and pieces of its operation.
The Bill does not only lose an opportunity but it rules out the possibility of integrating the planning of transport and its infrastructure in London. That is important because it must be sensible for the body that plans road networks and other infrastructure around the capital — which should continue to be the GLC—to have a direct impact and say on the provision of services.
My third point is so crucial that I make no apology for mentioning it again in the debate. I refer to the provision of free travel for pensioners. It is an important issue for pensioners. Time and again the Government and Conservative Members have missed the opportunity that we have afforded them to set at rest the mind of every pensioner in London. The reason why they failed to do that is revealed in an article in the Sutton and Cheam Advertiser


of 24 November. Sutton council is a member of the London Boroughs Association. Dr. Trafford, the leader of the council, is reported as saying:
There could even arise the absurd situation…whereby they could be 'fined' by the Government for spending on travel passes the £900,000 that the Government insisted they spend.
Dr. Trafford went on:
If the Government did not make adequate funds available then the passes would have to be means tested when the GLC was abolished".
That was not the GLC or me speaking, but the leader of Sutton council.
The crucial point is the provision of adequate finance. Will the Minister of State guarantee that when local authorities are encouraged by the Government, the LBA or any other source to bring in concessionary fares—or, even better, free fares—the amount spent on the scheme will be exempt from block grant penalty? Will extra finance be made available through rate support grant? Will the needs indices be adjusted according to the number of elderly people in the area so that the schemes can be implemented? If that guarantee is not given, any sympathy shown by Tory Members for pensioners' travel in London would not be worth the paper on which it was written.
The Bill will impose suffering on all Londoners, including my constituents, and I cannot accept it. It is badly conceived and even more badly executed.

Mr. Peter Snape: The groundwork for the Bill was laid earlier this year in the Government's White Paper "Public Transport in London", Cmnd. 9004. It was asserted on page 6 in paragraph 18 that one of the tasks of the London Regional Transport will be
to reduce costs and the call on the taxpayers' money".
The White Paper contained no detailed examination of how subsidies were used, nor did it make any attempt to assess the implications of how a reduction in subsidy might conflict with other objectives, especially another initial task of LRT which, according to the White Paper, is
to improve bus and Underground services for London".
The Bill is part of a cost-cutting exercise devised without any serious consideration of the realities of public transport finance.
It is expensive to run public transport in London, but that does not necessarily mean—although we would not realise this from some of the Conservative speeches—that London Transport is inherently inefficient or that the ratepayer in London gets poor value for money. In fact, to run public transport in any large city imposes a cost on the locals. No public transport system in the industrialised world can provide an efficient service and yet be economically viable without financial support. In any country and under any administration, subsidies are regarded as essential.
Far from being generously subsidised, public transport in Britain, especially in London, receives much less capital and revenue support than in most comparable countries. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who serves as a parliamentary private secretary to the Minister, chuckles at that. If she had been present for most of the debate——

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I was present.

Mr. Snape: I apologise. In that case, she will have heard some of her hon. Friends making similar comments. All the studies have shown that, while British Rail receives only 29 per cent. of its total costs from the Government, the average Government contribution in no fewer than 10 other railway systems that were recently examined—I know that the Secretary of State is not good at reading such documents, still less at comprehending them—received on average 47 per cent. in subsidy.
The Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory 1980 report on the subsidisation of urban public transport in 15 Western countries found that the subsidy in Britain was only 30 per cent. of operating costs, compared with an average for Western cities of 50 per cent. The Select Committee on Transport, in its recent report on transport in London, drew attention to the fact that in 1981 London Transport received 32 per cent. of its operating costs in subsidy, whereas the subsidy for the Paris underground was 54 per cent., and for the Brussels and Milan systems 76 per cent. Of the nine European cities mentioned in the report whose transport systems were funded on a basis comparable with ours, only one — Munich—approached the low level of subsidy received by London Transport, and even then its subsidy was significantly higher at 40 per cent.
All those investigations show that the consequence of low subsidies in Britain has been a vicious circle of higher fares and service cuts, resulting in declining patronage, leading in turn to still higher costs, thus setting off the chain of fare increases once more. That is the road on which we shall embark yet again if the Bill becomes law.
The Government's aims are patently contradictory. They cannot have both an improvement in services and a reduction in subsidies. It will certainly take more than a speech from the Secretary of State today to convince us otherwise. If the Government really wish to improve services, greater capital and revenue support is essential.
The Paris underground has been much mentioned today. When Conservatives talk about publicly owned industry they always talk about productivity—by which they mean redundancies. It is true that the Paris metro has 40 per cent. fewer employees than London Transport and carries 200 million more passengers per year, but those facts do not embarrass us. The reduction in the number of employees was the result of a decade of high investment in the system. The Conservatives, however, want it both ways. They talk about inefficiencies and the desirability of redundancies in London Transport, but they withhold the very capital investment that would make more economical operation possible. They have taken a truly Jekyll and Hyde attitude to this debate.
I had intended to congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on an eminently sensible speech, but having led up to the obvious conclusion that the Bill was nonsense he then behaved like other Conservative Members who can only be described as chocolate soldiers. Having marched to the top of the hill with fixed bayonet, he threw down his rifle at the first whiff of grapeshot in the shape of the first angry glance from the Government Whip and announced that, despite the views that he so expertly expressed, he intended to vote for legislation which would cause even greater problems and take us even further down the dark road that he described.
On the whole question of public transport subsidies there has been — I hesitate to use the term but I can


think of no more suitable phrase—something of a cover-up at the Department since the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) took over as Secretary of State. A magazine which does not normally favour higher subsidies for public transport, and which does not normally express much opinion on these matters —Motor Transport—published an article on 13 August this year under the heading:
Department of Transport Backs Higher Subsidies".
The content of the article may seem somewhat odd, but it was certainly interesting. It said:
Subsidies for public transport in major urban areas give good value for money and should even be increased, according to Department of Transport research. Details of this potentially embarassing result"—
they were not wrong there—
were given to the annual planning and transport research computation conference at Brighton last week. The Department of Transport is currently trying to reduce public transport subsidies and is building a new computer model to divide the subsidy money between London and the other metropolitan counties.
No wonder my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) could not get a reply to his question. He asked the Secretary of State about the amount of the subsidy in London. Either the computer has not yet arrived, or the right hon. Gentleman cannot change the plug, because he failed abjectly to give a straight reply to that question.
However, I must not keep regressing, if that is the right word, to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because the article from which I quote is much too interesting. It went on to say:
The model has also produced results on the value of transport subsidies. It shows that subsidies in south Yorkshire, already the highest in Britain, are worth increasing and suggests cutting fares by up to 25 per cent. in Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire.
It added:
The results support the fares cut in London Transport introduced by the Greater London Council earlier this year, but suggest a 28 per cent. rather than the 25 per cent. cut implemented".
The report concluded:
But the Department of Transport is not going to use its computer model to increase public transport subsidies.
There is a waste of public expenditure for a start! The computer is probably the biggest one that we have at present and it will probably be changed for an Atari which will come up with something different.
The article said that it was just going to compare the value of subsidy in different counties. In other words, it seems to the Opposition, after looking at the article and listening to the speech by the right hon. Gentleman, that in this matter, as in many others dealing with the public sector, the one thing the Government cannot stand is too many hard facts. The Government are not very good when faced with the truth. They simply ignored the results of that exercise because the results did not conform to the well-known and long-held prejudices of the Secretary of State. If the Government want stability in public transport, which is what they repeatedly claim, they should let their policies be guided by examination, by analysis and by reason and not by the right hon. Gentleman's prejudices, no matter how long-standing those prejudices happen to be.
During the debate we have heard the typical war cry from the intellectutally bankrupt Conservative Benches that the problems of London Transport are all due to the inefficiency of those who work in the industry. I must

confess, as somebody who used to get up fairly early in the morning to help operate a railway system, that I am not too tolerant when I listen to fairly well-heeled and well-cosseted Conservative Members talking about productivity. The House will have a chance to see how much Conservative Members believe in productivity on Friday afternoon when we tackle another restrictive practice in a profession to which many Conservative Members happen to belong. But I must not digress. Let us deal with this myth of inefficiency in the public transport industries of the country in general and London Transport in particular.
The most familiar complaint in the debate and elsewhere lies in the allegedly slow process in the introduction of one-man, or perhaps I should say in these enlightened days one-person, operation of buses and underground trains—OPO if I may use the shortened phrase without causing any offence. The fact of the matter is that over half of London's bus services—53 per cent. to be precise — are now one person operated, and virtually all suburban services throughout Greater London are so operated.
Where crew operation of buses continues to exist, it is on services in inner and central London areas. The reason for two-person operation in inner and central London is simple. It has nothing to do with trade union opposition to change. It has everything to do with the need to encourage traffic flow, as we have heard from Conservative Members on numerous occasions in the debate, in the circumstances of chronic congestion found particularly in the central London area.
Chronic congestion in London appears to be the least of the Secretary of State's worries. Not once as he ploughed tardily through his brief earlier in the day did he mention the question of chronic congestion. I do not know whether Conservative Members have enough wit or imagination to consider the problems that one-person operated buses would cause in the central London area. The Select Committee on Transport quoted in its report "Transport in London" the fact that on a weekday evening at peak time about 25,000 passengers were picked up by buses in Oxford street alone.
I presume that the Secretary of State knows what a bus looks like. Can he imagine 25,000 people trying to board buses in Oxford street and the congestion that would be caused if they were one-person operated buses? I wish that he and his colleagues had reflected for a moment—before they peddled their ignorance about inefficiency in London Transport—on exactly what the switch to one-person operation would mean on public transport in the centre of London.
The reasoning on this issue was accepted by the Select Committee on Transport, an all-party body. It is a pity that some of the Conservative Members who signed that committee's report are not present today to give us the benefit of their enlightened views on London Transport. All the members of that Committee accepted the situation as I have outlined it, and the report, which was unanimous, said:
It is not our impression that union intransigence is a major factor in persuading London Transport to continue to run the majority of their central area buses with two-man crews.
I regret that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who made a somewhat confused speech and immediately left the Chamber, is not here, because we could have pointed that out to him.
It is possible to argue, in view of the recent progress with fares simplification, that it may be possible to achieve a further limited movement towards more one-person operation on London's buses. It goes without saying that the conversion of more buses to one-person operation and the building of more buses is an expensive business. The existing crew operated buses cannot be converted for one-person only operation, and the currrent price, for example, of a Metrobus—manufactured, incidentally, not far from my constituency — is over £80,000. That is a lot of capital investment if we are to go in for a wholesale changeover in operation from the present system. It is that very investment that the Secretary of State, by the Bill, is seeking to deny to London Transport. He cannot have it both ways.
The Select Committee made precisely that observation in connection with the system of two-person operation on London's underground trains, when it said:
This situation"—
that is, two-man operation—
is bound to continue so long as rolling stock is designed for this method of operation, and improvements in this direction"—
towards one-person operation—
are critically dependent on capital investment funds.
Again an obvious truth, but one which appears to have escaped the notice of Conservative Members.

Mr. Baldry: As a chocolate soldier, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say where the Bill prohibits the board of LRT from raising capital to buy new buses or whatever it wishes to do?

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is not just a chocolate soldier. Only the original Milky Bar kid could have asked a question like that. The Bill specifically restricts the amount of money available for London Transport. It cannot operate the system on the amount of money that it gets now. I am sorry to be laborious over this—dealing with Conservative Members is like knocking a nail in a mattress — but if that amount of money is restricted further there will be even less available for capital investment by LRT, or whatever fancy name the Secretary of State cares to give it and whatever colour he wants to paint the buses, deep Tory blue or chocolate coloured.

Mr. Baldry: There is no statutory prohibition.

Mr. Snape: One does not need a statutory prohibition to strangle somebody. One merely cuts off the supply, which in this case is money. I should have thought that this was obvious to every hon. Member, and particularly Tory Members, but obviously I made a mistake and overestimated their intelligence.
The essential consideration on public transport is safety, for passengers and staff alike. For London Transport, safety and the change in working practices depend on the installation of such things as automatic train stops, because in the event of difficulties it is plainly necessary for the train to stop automatically. Again, that comes out of capital investment, and if that is denied the improvements will not take place and the inherently inefficient—in the eyes of Tory Members—system will continue.
When investment for innovation has been forthcoming on the Continent and in this country, for example on the Tyne and Wear metro, one-person operation of the system

has been possible. It has not been possible in London because the investment has not been forthcoming, and there will be no investment if the Bill goes through. It has been only the willingness of the Labour GLC to invest in underground modernisation that has permitted consideration of the implementation of one-person operation on many rail lines.
It is against the background of the £50 million investment programme to install radio telecommunication between underground drivers and control centres that the National Union of Railwaymen is now on the point of reaching an agreement with London Transport on the implementation of one-person operation on the Metropolitan and City line, the line specifically referred to by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. There is every reason to believe that this agreement will be signed in the next few days, and again it depends both on investment and co-operation between management and unions, which is taking place.
That is just one aspect of the considerable co-operation on efficiency and savings measures that has occurred between unions and management in London's underground and bus services in the past few years. The management has fully acknowledged that the unions have contributed well over half of the looked-for savings on such things as a reduction in the working week. It has acknowledged that the unions have contributed by way of agreements on manning both buses and trains. If Conservative Members wish to have a serious debate on these matters, they should take the trouble to learn about the subject properly.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is reading a brief.

Mr. Snape: Without being modest, if I am reading a brief, I am doing so a damned sight better than the Secretary of State did when he opened the debate.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend understands his brief.

Mr. Snape: The Secretary of State did the House a grave disservice by the casual and laconic way that he went through what was, to start with, an extremely bad brief. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly a broad brush man, and is good at it—we have seen some of his exhibits in the Upper Committee Corridor. His broad brush is better when it is used on oils and canvas or even on watercolours than when it is used on the sort of approach that he adopted this afternoon.
When they talked about the ratepayers' contribution, we heard a great deal from some Conservative Members about the poor oppressed ratepayers of London. It seemed to me that the more they talked about the oppressed ratepayers the less they had read the Bill. If the Bill does anything, it guarantees that the contribution that the ratepayers make to their transport system will increase, despite the fact that the efficiency and frequency of that service are likely to deteriorate fairly quickly.
Another question that the Secretary of State could not answer was how much expenditure he desired on London Transport, and the best example of what this might be lies in the protected expenditure limit announced for the GLC last Wednesday. In this, the Secretary of State recommends a level of subsidy on London Transport revenue account for 1984–85 of £125 million. I do not know whether he is aware of that, but it is another figure


that he could not give this afternoon, although it is in a press release from his Department, which he was kind enough to lend me, dated 7 December.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to me.

Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman keeps digging pits and jumping into them. That figure, issued in the press release, is £70 million less than London Transport requires to operate at current fares and service levels, and £90 million less than would be required if the GLC's proposals for greater integration with British Rail and enhanced bus services were to be implemented. Hon. Gentlemen have demanded greater integration with British Rail, but integration costs money and it is not available under the Bill's provisions. Even if capital were available overnight, the cost of redundancies, investment in new rolling stock and the difficulty of disposing of large assets such as bus garages would make it impossible to bridge the £70 million gap in the myth perpetrated by the Secretary of State and the reality of running London Transport.
The Opposition all know, and Conservative Members if they would he honest enough to admit it know, that there will be a massive increase in London bus and underground fares as a result of the Bill. If the Minister of State can find an alternative to that increase and match the figures that I have given, I hope that she will do so when she replies. Figures were sadly lacking from the Secretary of State's speech. Millions of London ratepayers would like to see a hefty cut in their rate burden. I live in London for most of the year and I should like to see a hefty cut in my rates—but at what cost? Would the average Londoner wish to see his bus and tube service decimated to receive a rate reduction? The Bill will not give him a reduction in his rates.

Mr. Ridley: This is all very boring.

Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is boring. He should have listened to himself this afternoon. It may be boring, but my speech does not come from a departmental brief given to me by a bunch of civil servants. It comes from my heart. If the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, he should not be doing his job.
We all know that there are two main reasons why the right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Transport. First, he is one of the few remaining Conservative Members—I am not talking about the Members elected in June whose enthusiasm for Government policies is understandable and will die fairly quickly—one of the older intake, who entered the House in 1959, who believes that this monetarist madness works. It is not because of any interest he has expressed for transport matters during his parliamentary career. He gave the impression that his transport knowledge was confined to plugging in the odd Hornby 00 in his younger days. Secondly, the Department of Transport has for too long been seen as just another step along the road to greater political fame and fortune.
The right hon. Gentleman is the third Secretary of State for Transport that we have had in a year. The Opposition will agree when I say that on today's performance he is undoubtely the worst, and thinking of some of his predecessors that is saying something.
We believe that public transport in London and elsewhere is too important to be left to the right hon. Gentleman's cynicism. The Opposition will not filibuster

in Committee. We shall study the Bill clause by clause and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain the odd clause here and there before he takes off for more important meetings. On today's performance, we doubt whether he will be able to give any explanations. We urge him to pack the Committee, if necessary, not with hon. Members who have spoken today, because willing and enthusiastic though they were, their desire to be loyal overcame any great interest in London's ratepayers. The Secretary of State is in for a long and hard battle in Committee. We reiterate a long-held belief in democracy at any level. As was said earlier, we would rather see London Transport under a Tory-controlled GLC than left to the tender and inadequate mercies of the Secretary of State.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It has been an interesting and highly predictable debate. Before I deal with detailed points, there is one thing we should get clear about London's public transport. By anybody's standards it is a very big business. It has an annual turnover of £850 million. Only 24 private companies in the United Kingdom employ more staff than London Transport. That is why the Bill, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, starts from the view that running an enterprise as large and as complicated as this requires, first and foremost, management skills of the highest order. We cannot expect to find or to retain such skills if they are constantly to be subject to political and bureaucratic interference. It is to get away from the day-to-clay interference that the Bill proposes to take the responsibility from the GLC, which daily spends more and more ratepayers' money on expensive documents like "Kill the Bill" produced at ratepayers' expense to try to hide what it is really after — to avert its own abolition by a different piece of legislation.
It is no good if accountability of any public body is clouded by divisions of responsibility between endless committees and line management itself. We brought forward the Bill because we are set on simplification. We will have proper and adequate safeguards, but until we leave the managers of London's public transport free to take the management decisions on their own we will never improve the standard for the traveller in London. That is what we intend to do through the Bill.
There are no complications in the Bill of new supervising authorities or watchdog bodies. I shall come back to this in a few minutes. We must have a structure which will develop under the powers of the Bill to meet the needs of the traveller in London, but it must have the object of maintaining clear lines of accountability within the broad objective that London Regional Transport will be set by my right hon. Friend.
The Bill caters for change and development. It will create new services where these are needed by passengers and encourage new forms of interchange between different modes of transport—coach to rail, underground to bus and even perhaps new passenger services on the river— but it is an approach which is simple and above all practicable and workable.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who described my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in various chocolate terms, is more like a well-known mint. He has a very firm exterior, but there is an awful lot of air in the middle. That is exactly what we had this evening.
The hon. Member was very concerned about investment, as are we. Under the Bill, London Regional Transport will continue to receive grants for revenue support for depreciation and renewal and for capital investment, as it does now, but it will at last have the chance to borrow on short-term for overdrafts for its own cash flow and long-term for more profitable capital investment. There is no limit on grant in the Bill, because there is no need to provide a special opportunity to debate London Transport finances. We shall have an annual negative order on the ratepayer contribution which can be debated in the House.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said that there was a limit on borrowing in the Bill. There is a £100 million limit but that can be raised by order, and a £100 million limit ought to be enough to last London Transport for some years.
We heard a lot from various hon. Members about democracy and accountability. First, we should look at what is proposed in the Bill. I got the feeling that many hon. Members have not done so, particularly some of those who made some extravagant claims about what now takes place under the GLC. The Bill gives London Regional Transport specific duties, including the preparation of plans on which there should be full consultations with local authorities and the users' consultative committee. It creates a clear and accountable financial regime. As a result, there will be proper transparency of cost, something we have not had in the past. The Bill also requires annual reports on how LRT's performance has measured up to the plans.
Secondly, we shall establish a powerful new watchdog committee — a single committee — to look after the interests of consumers. There is no question but that this committee will clearly scrutinise the way in which customers' needs have been met on London Regional Transport and British Rail alike.
Thirdly, there is accountability to this House. Some Labour Members have argued that the present accountability of the GLC is satisfactory.

Mr. Tony Banks: Through the ballot box.

Mrs. Chalker: I should point out to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was shouting in his normal way, that the ratepayers who finance the bulk of what the GLC spends have no vote in local elections. They provide London's jobs. In fact, the non-domestic ratepayer provides more than 62 per cent. of London's rates. In addition, London's visitors and commuters are in no way represented by the GLC. That is why I and the Government believe that GLC decisions should be patently clear and should not, as at present, be taken in a closed party caucus.

Mr. Prescott: What is the Cabinet?

Mrs. Chalker: Time and again, opposition councillors do not see papers until late in the day, if they see them at

all, and time and again public transport expenditure in London has never been properly revealed, least of all to that 62 per cent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Mr. Spearing: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot give way, as I have only a short time in which to reply.
The packing of the LT board has been designed to blur the facts and suppress the options. That, among other things, has above all shown how unfit the GLC has become to run London Transport.
By contrast, the Secretary of State will set out clearly and publicly the objectives and principles for LRT. He is required to do so by the Bill. LRT policies will be debated in this House, and the amount of subsidy will be clearly stated and debated annually. Those are all aspects of accountability against which the Opposition have no reason to argue, however much they may try.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady give way on the question of accountability?

Mrs. Chalker: I very much regret having to say that I cannot do so at present.
There has been much interest in the new consumer body. A number of questions have been asked about it, and I wish to place something clearly on the record. When my right hon. Friend mentioned the proposed new arrangements for consumer representation, he said that the proposals for a merger originated with the consumer bodies. I am grateful to those bodies that we met, and we are now able to give the London Regional Passengers' Committee an important status in the Bill.
The London Transport Users' Consultative Committee wrote a letter only today saying how encouraged it is by our proposals. There has also been a welcome by the London Transport Passengers' Committee, the present London Transport consultative committee. The London Regional Passengers' Committee in future—the single consumer body—will be consulted on London Regional Transport policy statements under clause 7 of the Bill and informed about current plans under clause 29. The arrangements mirror one of the Bill's main objectives, which is to achieve liaison between British Rail and LRT, which the passengers of London not only want and need but deserve.
Fares were mentioned by several hon. Members. The role of the new consumer body in relation to fares is important. At present consumer bodies dealing with transport — the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the area transport users' consultative committees, and, in London, the LTPC—all have fares and charges specifically excluded from their statutory remit. In December last year the Government published a document called
The Nationalised Industry Consumer Councils: A Strategy for Reform".
In the document we said that we were considering whether that exclusion should continue.
We gave careful consideration during the preparation of the Bill first to the general principle and second to the possible use of the Bill as a vehicle in which to incorporate any change to the existing law in this respect. The general principle is that the industries must work to the financial objectives set by Government and determine the level of


fares without being subject to specific directions. However, we accept that within that framework there is a role for the consumer bodies in relation to the structure and relativities of fares.
On the second point, it would not be appropriate to make such a change in a Bill the scope of which is limited to the London region. However, the Government intend to deal with the matter on the above lines if and when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
Meanwhile, I am glad to say that the chairman of British Rail, Mr. Bob Reid, has agreed that his board will consult both the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the new London Regional Passengers' Committee about fares and charges on an informal basis, in advance of any new legislation. I am sure that the board of LRT, when appointed, will agree to do the same thing in relation to the LRPC. I hope that when hon. Members read what I have said about fares, they will understand the depth of what I have said.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister of State will be aware of the brief that was sent to every hon. Member from the National Consumer Council, which says that in the Bill the LRPC lacks
rights to consultation and to access to the information essential for the effective representation of passengers' interests.
That is missing from the Bill.

Mrs. Chalker: That is the reason why I said what I did about fares just now. If the hon. Gentleman reviews what I said when he reads Hansard, he will understand its import. We have taken the advice of the TUCC for London and the LTPC. We got them together, which was the first change from the White Paper to the Bill. We are seeking at least to give them some access to discussions on an informal basis until such legislation is passed.

Mr. Prescott: So the Bill is like a mark 3 Bill.

Mrs. Chalker: It is in no way a mark 3 Bill. A House of Commons that refused to amend a Bill would not be doing the best thing and listening to other people.
In the debate we heard that there is a banner at County Hall across the river. I have not yet seen it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that 90 per cent. of 562 people who were asked felt that the GLC should carry on being responsible for London Transport. The hon. Gentleman might remember that I am a statistician. I worked for 13 years in market research. It is interesting that only 562 people were interviewed. I should like to know where they were interviewed in their quota sample and what questions they were asked. I bet the hon. Gentleman a small amount of money that if he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were asked, "Would you like fares to be kept down?" they would both answer, "Yes". Of course, much of a sample such as that depends on the question that is asked.

Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Lady cannot accept that poll, will she at least accept the verdict of the GLC election when that transport policy was put to the London electorate and it voted overwhelmingly in favour of it?

Mrs. Chalker: I seem to remember that when the Labour party went into the GLC election in 1981 it was under a quite different leadership and had a different manifesto. A great deal has changed in Greater London because of that.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me to explain some of the figures about ratepayer

contributions that he handed to the Secretary of State. Many figures have been bandied about. I hope that he will listen closely as the subject is complicated. He might remember that, last autumn, the GLC claimed in press advertisements — which again were paid for by ratepayers, of course—that only 3 per cent. of London Transport's costs were provided by the taxpayer. In January this year it used a combination of assumptions to claim that the ratepayer contribution for 1983–84 would be more than 90 per cent. It has now used a different set of calculations to arrive at a ratepayer contribution of 62 per cent.
I could show the House, by using equally judicious methods and assumptions, that the ratepayer contribution is more than 100 per cent. by taking hold-back and taper into account. I do not wish to puzzle the hon. Gentleman any more. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that he will want to delve into this matter in Committee. We have examined the figures in some detail and made calculations. I do not wish to mislead anyone, least of all the House, by attaching too much weight to the calculations which the hon. Gentleman mentioned or the ones that I am about to mention. However, in 1983–84 the GLC budgeted to spend £235 million on revenue support and £155 million on capital grant. That represents a total of £390 million. On the neutral assumption of attributing transport supplementary grant pro rata to accepted expenditure, the Government provided £104 million of that grant. That represented 27 per cent. of the GLC's support to the London Transport Executive. On that basis the ratepayer contribution is 73 per cent. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend said that by having a maximum of two thirds set in the Bill ratepayers will be better off.
Our main objective has been to achieve progressive reduction of costs and the associated level of subsidy. There is nothing sacrosanct about the two thirds maximum and I hope that there will be scope for reducing it if all goes well.
I was also asked for a simple explanation of protected expenditure levels. That is not the easiest thing to do in the time that is available to me. I shall simply say that we are quite confident that setting the figure which was announced last week will not necessitate substantial fares increases in 1984–85, provided that nothing is done to add to the costs which are borne by the London Transport Executive or to squander the savings which the executive expects to achieve in 1983–84. That is the substance of the press release which London Transport has released this evening.
Concessionary fares are a vexed issue. It is typical of the GLC and its supporters that they continue to arouse needless anxiety about something that is not directly affected by the Bill. I should like to make it clear once again that the Bill merely maintains the powers of the GLC and the boroughs to fund concessionary fares on any operator's services. After the abolition of the GLC in more than two years' time, concessionary fares will be a matter for the boroughs. The London Boroughs Association has already agreed that the boroughs should assume responsibility for concessionary fares on the basis of the existing scheme. I see no reason why any pensioners should be alarmed by the GLC's scare stories, although in all probability such is the extent of the GLC's advertising that many will be worried needlessly. Only a few months ago we heard that it was not possible for the boroughs to get together as to the funding of voluntary organisations.


but they have now got together voluntarily to discuss that subject. From my conversations with leaders of different London boroughs and the leader of the LBA, I have no doubt that they will get together to produce a workable scheme to maintain concessionary fares—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East can shout all he likes. The London boroughs must themselves decide the scheme. The pensioners of London need a workable scheme which can benefit those who need the concessions.
As hon. Members know, I take a special interest in services for the disabled. The funding and accountability for the costs of special services such as "dial-a-ride", subsidised taxis and the concessions on buses and tubes must be left with the local authorities. I understand the great anxiety faced by many disabled people as to the future provisions to meet their special needs. I give the House the assurance that we shall consider carefully their needs. I shall shortly be meeting the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides, the Joint Committee on Mobility of the Disabled and the Greater London Association of Disabled People to seek their views.
Among the principles which we will require LRT to work to will be for it constantly to improve the design and facility not only for the disabled but for all those with problems using conventional public transport—the frail, elderly, those with shopping, small children and so forth.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) took us back to 1933. I examined the proposals of the Labour Government of 1929, who set up the London Passenger Transport Act 1933 which was taken over by the national Government in 1933. It is interesting to note that all of the proposals accepted in the House were based on four points, first, unification under public control; secondly, management by a non-political body; thirdly, participation by the main line railway without transfer of ownership, and, fourthly, a self-supporting and subsidised system to be run commercially. We differ only on the fourth point, in that we believe that subsidy is needed to maintain services.

Mr. Spearing: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I shall write to the hon. Members to whom I am unable to reply or I shall deal with their questions in Committee.
portThe bus licensing provision of the Bill enables us to bring flexibility into the provision of services which we have hitherto not had in the capital city. Many areas of the capital city are not served as they deserve by some form of transport, as has been mentioned by many of my hon. Friends. We shall use the Bill to improve the position.
Opposition Members have accused the Government of making a politically motivated attack on the GLC. I assure the House that the decision to create London Regional Transport was independent of the Government's decision to abolish the GLC. We would have proceeded with the Bill in any event. The Bill, above all, seeks to apply modern management and commercial disciplines to the provision of public transport in London. In this way, the huge experience and expertise that London Transport has accumulated can be harnessed to provide improved standards and better services for London's travellers, free from the day-to-day increasing political interference as seen in the past few months. It provides a coherent and constructive plan to take public transport in the nation's

capital well into the next century. It also gives a clear and accountable remit to the business men who will be appointed to the board of LRT to carry out compatible financing for London Transport and British Rail.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 196.

Division No. 94]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Alexander, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Farr, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fletcher, Alexander


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Best, Keith
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Galley, Roy


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm"ds)


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Harvey, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayes, J.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayward, Robert


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hickmet, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Corrie, John
Hill, James


Couchman, James
Hind, Kenneth


Crouch, David
Hirst, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)






Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Holt, Richard
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hordern, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howard, Michael
Mudd, David


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Murphy, Christopher


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Needham, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Neubert, Michael


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Newton, Tony


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Norris, Steven


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Philip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Osborn, Sir John


Irving, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, John (Harrow W)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pawsey, James


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Key, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pollock, Alexander


King, Rt Hon Tom
Porter, Barry


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Powell, William (Corby)


Knowles, Michael
Powley, John


Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lamont, Norman
Price, Sir David


Lang, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Latham, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lawler, Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Renton, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lester, Jim
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lilley, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lord, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew


McCrindle, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ryder, Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Maclean, David John.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Major, John
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Silvester, Fred


Malone, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marland, Paul
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maude, Francis
Speller, Tony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spence, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spencer, D.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Merchant, Piers
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stern, Michael


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, J.


Montgomery, Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moore, John
Tapsell, Peter





Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Waller, Gary


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Walters, Dennis


Temple-Morris, Peter
Ward, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Wardle, C (Bexhill)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Warren, Kenneth


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wheeler, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitfield, John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Trippier, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Woodcock, Michael


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walden, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)



Wall, Sir Patrick





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Douglas, Dick


Alton, David
Dubs, Alfred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)


Barnett, Guy
Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beith, A. J,
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Anthony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forrester, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, W. E.


Bruce, Malcolm
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Godman, Dr Norman


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Golding, John


Campbell, Ian
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Thomas
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clay, Robert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Donald
Kirkwood, Archibald


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted






Leighton, Ronald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Loyden, Edward
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rowlands, Ted


McGuire, Michael
Ryman, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McWilliam, John
Short, Mrs R(W'hampt'n NE)


Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Maynard, Miss Joan
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meadowcroft, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, William
Stott, Roger


Mikardo, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Straw, Jack


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Nellist, David
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Park, George
Wareing, Robert


Parry, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
White, James


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pike, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. John Home-Robertson.


Redmond, M.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made—[Mr. Michael Cocks]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 339.

Division No. 95]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian


Ashdown, Paddy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnett, Guy
Clarke, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Conlan, Bernard


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Corbett, Robin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cowans, Harry


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Crowther, Stan


Bruce, Malcolm
Cunliffe, Lawrence





Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Martin, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dubs, Alfred
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Redmond, M.


Garrett, W. E.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Golding, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gould, Bryan
Robertson, George


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ryman, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Howells, Geraint
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Janner, Hon Greville
Snape, Peter


John, Brynmor
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kennedy, Charles
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lamond, James
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Leadbitter, Ted
Tinn, James


Leighton, Ronald
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Weetch, Ken


Loyden, Edward
Welsh, Michael


McCartney, Hugh
White, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wigley, Dafydd


McGuire, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Woodall, Alec


McKelvey, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Ayes:


McTaggart, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Home Robertson.


McWilliam, John







NOES


Adley, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Farr, John


Alexander, Richard
Favell, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Galley, Roy


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Best, Keith
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Body, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brinton, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam,John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Browne, John
Harvey, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carttiss, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hickmet, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Holt, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hooson, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Robert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Durant, Tony
Irving, Charles


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Eyre, Reginald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine





Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Key, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pollock, Alexander


King, Rt Hon Tom
Porter, Barry


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Powley, John


Knowles, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knox, David
Price, Sir David


Lamont, Norman
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lang, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Latham, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Renton, Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lester, Jim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lightbown, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lilley, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lyell, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon M.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David John.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Maude, Francis
Spence, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spencer, D.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Merchant, Piers
Stanley, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, J.


Montgomery, Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E,)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Terlezki, Stefan


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Newton, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steven
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Onslow, Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Philip
Trippier, David


Osborn, Sir John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)






Wall, Sir Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Woodcock, Michael


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitfield, John
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robeit Boscawen


Whitney, Raymond



Wiggin, Jerry

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1983–84

Question,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,172,383,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 97,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES 1984–85 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £38,985,488,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1985, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 98, 99 and 110,

put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Ian Stewart.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND

Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1984 and 1985; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the London Regional Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
1. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under or in consequence of the provisions of that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act;
2. The payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making loans to the body to be known by virtue of that Act as London Regional Transport;
3. The payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee given by them under that Act of the repayment of, the payment of interest on or the discharge of any other financial obligation in connection with, any sums borrowed by that body from a person other than the Secretary of State.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

WAYS AND MEANS

London Regional Transport

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That any Act resulting from the London Regional Transport Bill—
1. May authorise the Secretary of State—
(1) to make levies on the rating authorities for all rating areas comprised in Greater London for the purpose of recovering a contribution from the ratepayers of Greater London towards his estimated expenditure in any year on grants under that Act to the body to be known by virtue of that Act as London Regional Transport;
(2) to require that body to pay to him any excess of revenues over charges (as determined by that Act) in respect of any accounting year (within the meaning of that Act) of that body, so far as that excess appears to him to be surplus to that body's requirements;
(3) to require the Greater London Council—

(a) to pay to that body, in the year in which the appointed day (within the meaning of that Act) falls, such an amount by way of grant as the Secretary of State may determine; and
(b) to pay interest on any amount, or any part of any amount, required to be so paid which is not paid on or before the date on which it is required to be so paid;
2. May provide for the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
In this resolution 'year' (except in the expression 'accounting year') means a period of twelve months beginning with 1 April.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. John Prescott: I rise to make a number of crucial points on this resolution, which, it is clear, deals with a precept imposed by the Government on the ratepayers of London for transport purposes. As I say, it raises some crucial issues to which London Members at least should pay careful attention. I do not wish to delay the House at this hour, and I shall keep within the narrow terms of the resolution.
It is clear from the resolution that any excess of revenue over charges required by London Regional Transport will go to the Secretary of State. Presumably that means that when the revenue exceeds the costs in any year, the surplus will be acquired by the Treasury. Let us consider the situation that London Transport faces today. In this year's finances, the outturn is different from that predicted. Earnings from travel cards are £30 million more than was predicted when the budgeting was done for this financial year. With London Transport being governed by the GLC, that money is available to the ratepayers and the GLC may be taken into account in considering the rate precept by the GLC, or it may be used for the improvement of transport facilities.
The resolution before the House means that, because of the London Regional Transport Bill, any surplus revenues will not go to London ratepayers. It is possible that the figures for a given year will turn out to be different from the projected estimates, and where there is a surplus that money will go to the Treasury. That will represent a transport tax on Londoners.
Is it fair— is it acceptable to the House — that we should pass a Ways and Means resolution which allows the Government to put a rate precept on Londoners without any accountability at the ballot box, unlike what happens with the present GLC? I note that a similar state of affairs applies to the Metropolitan police, who, I gather, have a right to a separate precept, provided that the Home Secretary agrees. They are obliged to check with the

borough treasurers, who are forced to pay the precept, but they are accountable also to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
We are about to "nationalise" London Transport, and the same checks are not available in respect of the transport rate precept which we are considering in the resolution. Clearly, therefore, an important principle about surpluses earned by London Transport arises, namely, whether those surpluses should go straight into the Consolidated Fund and the Treasury, or whether the ratepayers of London should be entitled at least to claim back that proportion of the rate precept that is not spent on transport. It is an important point which cannot be ignored.
The debate on the Bill did not make clear how much ratepayers will have to pay for transport when it is administered by the Department of Transport. Whether they are paying 50 or 66 per cent. of the cost, ratepayers will be interested to know how that money is spent. Any surpluses should go to the ratepayers. They are to be denied the checks that exist with the present local authority system of challenging councillors or throwing them out al elections. Ratepayers will have only the House, probably under the negative procedure, in which to discuss their right to the provision of a local transport service.
It is clear that the Treasury will not lose. If the system which the Bill provides turns London Transport, as the Government hope and the Opposition doubt, into a glowing success, presumably there will be a surplus. The resolution makes it clear that the surplus will accrue to the Treasury. If the system is a disaster and the Government's hopes are not realised, as the Opposition believe will be the case, it will cost considerably more, for the reasons that we have discussed this evening. The ratepayers are likely to have to pay the extra because the Secretary of State has the right under the Bill to levy a precept upon London ratepayers. They will be dissatisfied with the system if there is no accountability.
The Treasury will not lose, because if the system is a disaster and ratepayers have to pay more, the Bill says that the effect on public expenditure will be broadly neutral. Clearly the Government do not envisage the Treasury picking up the tab. If the scheme is a disaster and costs more, the Secretary of State will have only to increase the precept and the ratepayers will have to pay more for the Government's expensive mistakes. The Bill and the resolution are designed to ensure that the Treasury does not gain or lose but that London ratepayers will carry the burden.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has raised an interesting point. He did not quote the words of the resolution, which says:
so far as that excess appears to him to be surplus to that body's requirements.
There is no automatic clawback to the Treasury; there is an element of judgment. We should consider the overall effect of the resolution, on the ratepayers about whom the hon. Member seems to be so worried. The GLC did not seem very accountable——

Mr. Prescott: There are elections.

Mr. Bottomley: If elections count, the 1983 election when we stood for the abolition of the GLC and the removal of London Transport is the most recent.

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose——

Mr. Bottomley: There did not seem to be much accountability by the GLC when it took decisions which stopped London ratepayers from having the advantage of the rate support grant, or when fares were reduced and then increased. The GLC's estimate of the number of people who would buy a travelcard was not that brilliant. London ratepayers, travellers and electors will benefit from increased aid from the Treasury towards the subsidies, and as London Transport's costs start to decrease the need for subsidies will decline.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The motion before us is in the name of a Treasury Minister, but the Minister before us is the Secretary of State for Transport, although perhaps it is most appropriate that he should be the Minister here. If one uses an ancient phrase,
The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
His previous emanations and predilections have stamped the Bill and the motion more of the Treasury than of Transport.
Most of the debate has been about money, whether it be fares, profits, loans, guarantees or now a compulsory return of surplus revenue to the Treasury. We must therefore be very much aware of the extent to which the Treasury is taking direct control of London Transport. Nobody would believe that a future Secretary of State for Transport will be a free agent in the matter. From the Bill and the money resolution it is clear that the Treasury will take a much greater interest in the affairs of London Transport than before. That is where we know only too well a great deal of power lies.
No fewer than 12 clauses in the Bill relate to finance. The major one, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is clause 13, which gives the Secretary of State power to precept on London boroughs which have already received rate support grant from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The only thing is that because of this resolution, if there is a surplus at the end of the year, money which has been forwarded by ratepayers and by the Secretary of State for the Environment will be clawed back into Whitehall by the Secretary of State and the Treasury. In other words, that money will not he available to London Regional Transport for putting better bus services in new areas, improving them in my dockland area of Newham, providing better facilities for the disabled, more dial-a-ride schemes or whatever it is.
Why has the provision to return the money to the Treasury been put in the Bill? The Secretary of State for Transport owes us an explanation. I shall give him an explanation and let him deny it if he can. Of all the other financial constraints and constraints of direction as to policy with which London Regional Transport will be hedged, the final one of finance is here tied up because there will be no possibility for it over the years to create a surplus of money with which to do what it thinks best in the interests of London Regional Transport. In other words, the Treasury and central Government have got virtually complete control. If that is not the reason why this resolution is down, let the Secretary of State say so.
There is something else to which the Secretary of State may have to reply because I think it is in order to raise it. Under the financial provisions of the Bill the Secretary of State and London Regional Transport, or it with his permission, may provide all sorts of goodies. It may give guarantees, it may make loans, and it may make grants to its subsidiaries, people who are supposed to be operating under private enterprise for the good of the community. Under clause 19 lower interest rates may be charged for moneys borrowed. In other words, the Secretary of State is scattering around financial patronage where he chooses. That is a considerable power.
It is clear that profits will be engineered. Despite the fact that the money has to come from the ratepayers and from central Government, profits will be made. The Secretary of State will ensure by statute that profits are made: a new concept—profits by statute. How can the ratepayers, the citizens of London and perhaps the House, to which the Secretary of State and his successors will be responsible, check on what is happening to all this money? It may be said that it can be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and a Select Committee, but under clause 24 the Comptroller and Auditor General is specifically excluded from the operations of London Regional Transport. As this is a finance matter relating to moneys going back — which otherwise the Comptroller and Auditor General could examine if he wished — the Secretary of State owes us an explanation. If he refuses, we can conclude that the objects of the Bill are not the ones he gave but rather the objects of finance to make profits for some and to make the public pay.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is right that the principle behind the resolution should be challenged most forcefully. As was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), another totally unaccountable body will levy a tax on the people using a service. There will be a precept from a body which, so far as we know, will be composed of business men to run a business rather than people to run a service. It has long been a principle that local services should be governed by the right of the local people to determine who shall operate them and how they shall spend the money.
We are talking about 7 million Londoners. This matter is not primarily of concern to the nation as a whole. London is not simply our capital city; it is the home and place of work of the 7 million people who live here. It therefore comes ill from this Government to propose that those people will be denied the chance to have a say in the control of the money that is charged to them for this service.
For constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), this is the second local government service to be removed from democratic control. Two years ago, democratic control of planning provisions was removed from the docklands authority, and only the other week the Secretary of State confirmed that that body would continue to meet behind closed doors. There was no sign in tonight's debate that this new unaccountable body would open its doors to allow the doubly-paying public—even if they do not use the service—to see what is going on.
Despite what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) suggested, matters such as the raising of levies


by rating authorities were determined not in June, when people voted on national issues, but by the people of London voting on local issues.
Apart from the fundamental abrogation of the democratic control by which the country is governed, there is a second provision in paragraph 1(2). It is left totally to the Secretary of State—with no criteria at all to guide him or that will let people know which way he will be guided — to determine the surplus over and above the LRT's requirements. The problem is that the Secretary of State will have to take account of many other considerations, apart from the requirements of the users. If one looks at an underground map of my constituency, one will see that it is a white hole and little else, but the Secretary of State will have to consider more than just whether such areas should have different or expanded services.
It is wrong that annually the right hon. Gentleman should be able to get away with a quick excursion to the House which will not allow proper accountability. There will be no opportunity for London Members to get more than an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, which he will not even have to justify or explain. He will be able to give as bland and unacceptable an answer as he wishes, because at the end of a one-and-a-half-hour or two-hour debate his hon. Friends will vote in favour of his order.
That is not the way in which the excesses, surpluses and revenue of London Transport should be debated. We know how big a commercial undertaking it is. The Minister of State said that only 23 bodies in Britain had a larger budget. This is not the way in which to exercise the only democratic and accountable control. A fundamental decision whether the finances should be left with the service or siphoned off to be used elsewhere, although they had been paid to be used for that specific purpose—use in London Transport—should not be left to a one-and-ahalf-hour debate per year.
That shows the fundamental flaw in the financial management of the Bill and the concept that drives it forward. Londoners will be dissatisfied unless they are given the opportunity, which the Bill does not even hint at and the motion does not suggest, of knowing that they can bring to book the Secretary of State, whose interests, sadly, will be not with the service to Londoners but with his party throughout the country, and particularly not here.

Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that a group of business men would make the levy, but the motion states clearly that it is the Secretary of State.
Opposition Members made one telling point on any surplus that may go back to the Treasury. As a member of the Select Committee that spent 18 months looking at London's transport, I was struck forcibly by the fact that there had been insufficient investment in London Transport for too many years. If there is a surplus in any one year, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take that surplus into account in the next year and see that we can get sufficient investment in future, which perhaps we cannot afford at the moment? In the long run, it is not fares that decide a good public transport system but efficiency and regularity of service. That is what attracts long-term passenger use. Any Government or system that ignores that will have a recurring problem with public transport. That lesson has come from city after city

throughout the world. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance about how those surpluses will be applied in the years after they are exacted from London's fare-paying passengers?

Mr. Frank Dobson: Conservative Members representing Greater London never cease to astonish me by their craven acquiescence to any Government policy that damages both the interests and rights of the people whom they claim to represent.
The proposition in the Bill, the money order and the Ways and Means Resolution iare a new tax on Londoners. It is totally unprecedented in Britain for a Minister of the Crown to be able to impose a local rate precept on the people in a particular area. There is one example of a non-elected body imposing a precept — the Metropolitan police. Hallowed by time, and with a House of Commons that paid a little more attention to the interests of the people who have to pick up the bill, the House of Commons in former times has come up with a system that provides greater protection for London ratepayers, even over the Metropolitan police, than the Government now propose.
Through a fairly complicated procedure, the Receiver of the Metropolitan police has to submit estimates to the Home Secretary, who has to approve those estimates. The receiver has to consult a representative body of borough treasurers about the level of the precept that he is proposing. The borough treasurers and the authorities have a right to make representations to the Home Secretary before he approves the expenditure and the precept that goes with it. Moreover, previous Parliaments have wisely insisted that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have a hand in the process and be permitted to investigate what is going on. The Public Accounts Committee is also permitted to look into the matter if it feels like doing so or is prompted by hon. Members.
There are no such protections in the measures that the House is considering today. The Comptroller and Auditor General is specifically excluded, as is the Public Accounts Committee. The Secretary of State might, if he fancies, consult local authorities. The present Secretary of State probably will not fancy such consultation, bearing in mind the type of person he is. As a result, there will be no consultation, so there is no protection.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that the Secretary of State's proposal has been endorsed by the electorate in London. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have spent part of today ploughing through the election addresses of Conservative candidates in the general election who stood for seats in London. Not one of them said that he intended to introduce a measure which allowed the Secretary of State to impose a rate precept on Londoners instead of rates being levied by local authorities which are locally accountable.
This is a bad novelty which Tory Members, especially those who claim to represent London, ought strongly to oppose. The fact remains that the Secretary of State, who is prepared to take central powers in these matters, utterly refuses to assuage the fears of pensioners and disabled people in London by refusing to take the necessary powers to provide concessionary fares for them. He has refused to do that because his only interest is in his own job. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that when the London


Broadcasting Company interviewed him last night, he was introduced as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It obviously has his number.
In the 18th century, the Government were described as oligarchy moderated by riot. The Conservative party learnt to dislike the London mob because it occasionally stopped it from doing just what it wanted. It is clear that the Conservative party now regards most of the people who live in London as a regenerated London mob. We are faced with a proposal which allows the Government, not locally elected people, to levy a rate precept. We shall soon be faced with a proposition that the Secretary of State for Education and Science should be able to run Inner London's education service. We are also faced with a proposition that the Secretary of State for the Environment should determine the level of rates in London's boroughs and the quantity of services that they provide, apparently because the Government think that the ordinary people of London are unfit to elect people to run London and its boroughs. If no Tory Members from London constituencies oppose this disgraceful measure, they will merely confirm what a craven, rotten, lousy lot they are.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I wish to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) in regard to the necessity for proper long-term investment. I want to make a political point. Under the Conservative administration of Sir Horace Cutler at County hall, there was such a run-down that London buses were not replaced. One of the results was that Park Royal Vehicles Ltd., which has made London's red double-decker buses for 50 years, had to close. It was not until there was a change of administration in County hall that the necessary investment was made. The result was orders for 600 buses to replenish the much-depleted fleet.
I was pleased that assurances were asked for about investment. The Conservative administration did not provide adequate investment for the replenishment of London's buses.

11 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the Bill removed from local government its planning and transport functions. Throughout the debate, nearly every Opposition Member has urged the Government to remove from local authorities their function of providing concessionary fares for pensioners and the disabled. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Secretary of State lived in London, he would realise that many people face difficulties in limiting their lives to one borough. London consists of 32 boroughs. Unlike the position in many other authorities where people move and live in a small community, London does not work in that way. Borough boundaries cross roads between one's house and shopping area. Concessionary fares on a London-wide basis have a logic that does not affect borough decisions.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman, as with all Liberal Members, is trying to have it both ways. When it suits the hon. Gentleman's book to accuse the Government of taking away local government functions, he complains,

but when it suits his book to ask the Government to take away local government functions and they will not, he again complains.
The major issue raised by the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey, for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) involved the accountability of the rate precept. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the Metropolitan police was an example of rate precepting. Once again, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was wrong in what he said. LRT does not have a right to precept on the rates. That function will be performed by the Secretary of State—me. The Home Secretary does not have a right to precept on the rates when dealing with the Metropolitan police. More accountability will exist as the Government and not the individual bodies will make the precept.
The Government will make an annual order in the House on which a debate may take place embodying the rate precept in terms of a rate poundage. That is where the accountability takes place. A greater level of accountability exists for the LRT than for the Metropolitan police. I must bring hon. Members back to reality as LRT will be similar to a typical Herbert Morrisonian nationalised industry. I have no wish to score points in either direction. Some hon. Gentlemen have tried to score points against me. I heard in the debate for the first time Opposition Members scoring points against a standard nationalised industry. Perhaps we can bury that hatchet during the argument.
A standard nationalised industry is not controlled politically day to day but is given its objectives, about which the statutes are clear. Parliament has the opportunity to debate them when their borrowing limits are raised or, as in this instance, it has an annual debate on the precept. Parliament also has an opportunity to debate this matter on any occasion when the Opposition wish to raise the matter, be it a Supply day or any other available opportunity. Those are the ways in which nationalised industries are accountable, and that is what London Regional Transport will become. It is astonishing that Labour Members, who designed the measures of accountability for all the other nationalised industries, including British Rail, the British Gas Corporation and so on, and thought them satisfactory, should start to complain now.
I was asked about the resolution by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. He pointed out that paragraph 1(2) of the resolution authorised payment into the Consolidated Fund of any surplus that London Regional Transport might make in any particular year. However, it does not compel London Regional Transport to pay over its surplus. That would be a matter for ministerial decision. In practice, the Government may well feel it right to leave any surplus in reserve with London Regional Transport.
The system will be as follows. In any given year an estimate will be made of the subsidy needed by London Regional Transport which will be based on its own budget and plans. At the end of the year, having levied that amount partly through the rate and partly through taxes, the sum will be determined, and may be slightly more or less than previously estimated, and paid over. Consequently, the figures will be adjusted next year. That


is how it will work. There is no question of the Treasury making a profit at the expense of ratepayers, or of its pocketing surpluses, as has been suggested.
That power must exist, because there may be circumstances in which rebates are due both to the Government and to the ratepayer. Rebates to the Government can be made by means of the power in the resolution, while rebates to the ratepayer can be made by reducing the rate precept the following year.

Mr. Dobson: If it is highly unlikely that any surplus will ever accrue to the Treasury, why is the Secretary of State bothering with this resolution? The Secretary of State can abate his grant or that of the Secretary of State for the Environment to London Transport for the future year, or he can abate the rates in future years. There is no need for the Secretary of State to give himself the power to hand the money over to the Treasury.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There could well be circumstances in which it would be right to do so. As with this year, there could be a surplus of about £30 million over the grant provided for London Transport. It might be thought desirable for the Treasury to keep that, and to readjust the sum the following year. In those circumstances, such a power would be necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made an important point. The difference between the present investment position for London Transport and the future under the Bill is that London Regional Transport will borrow to cover its normal investment, just as any other nationalised industry does. It will be subject to an external financing limit but, as with British Rail, that limit will be perfectly adequate for all reasonable investment needs. Of course, there is nothing in the Bill to frustrate proper investment by London Regional Transport. The two should not be mixed up.
A distressing aspect of the Opposition's case is that they do not seem to distinguish between revenue subsidies and investment — [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had better manners. He has been shouting all afternoon.
In view of my explanation, I hope that the House will accept the resolution.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 165.

Division No. 96]
[11.9 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browne, John


Batiste, Spencer
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Bulmer, Esmond


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Burt, Alistair


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butcher, John


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Corrie, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Couchman, James
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Favell, Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, Alexander
Lester, Jim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fox, Marcus
Lord, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lyell, Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Fry, Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


Galley, Roy
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David John.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gow, Ian
Madel, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Major, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maude, Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mellor, David


Harvey, Robert
Merchant, Piers


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayward, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Monro, Sir Hector


Hickmet, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus


Hicks, Robert
Moore, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hill, James
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hirst, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mudd, David


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Neubert, Michael


Hooson, Tom
Newton, Tony


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Onslow, Cranley






Oppenheim, Philip
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Osborn, Sir John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stokes, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pink, R. Bonner
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Terlezki, Stefan


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powley, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Price, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thurnham, Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Trippier, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Ryder, Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shersby, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitfield, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spence, John
Woodcock, Michael


Spencer, D.
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, John
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alton, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashdown, Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clarke, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clay, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Barnett, Guy
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Blair, Anthony
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Cowans, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, Stan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Malcolm
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric





Dewar, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Douglas, Dick
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, W. E.
Redmond, M.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Godman, Dr Norman
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gould, Bryan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hardy, Peter
Robertson, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Home Robertson, John
Ryman, John


Howells, Geraint
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoyle, Douglas
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Kennedy, Charles
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archibald
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ronald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Loyden, Edward
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert


McTaggart, Robert
Welsh, Michael


McWilliam, John
White, James


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, Michael



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Meadowcroft, Michael



Michie, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the London Regional Transport Bill—
1. May authorise the Secretary of State—
(1) to make levies on the rating authorities for all rating areas comprised in Greater London for the purpose of recovering a contribution from the ratepayers of Greater London towards his estimated expenditure in any year on grants under that Act to the body to be known by virtue of that Act as London Regional Transport;
(2) to require that body to pay him any excess of revenues over charges (as determined by that Act) in respect of any accounting year (within the meaning of that Act) of that body, so far as that excess appears to him to be surplus to that body's requirements;


(3) to require the Greater London Council—

(a) to pay to that body, in the year in which the appointed day (within the meaning of that Act) falls, such an amount by way of grant as the Secretary of State may determine; and
(b) to pay interest on any amount, or any part of any amount, required to be so paid which is not paid on or before the date on which it is required to be so paid;
2. May provide for the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
In this resolution 'year' (except in the expression 'accounting year') means a period of twelve months beginning with 1 April.

European Community (Transport Infrastructure)

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 8922/83 setting out proposals for financial support for a multi-annual programme for transport infrastructure; and welcomes the views set out in the Secretary of State for Transport's Explanatory Memorandum of 14th October.
We are glad to debate this measure. The proposal on which the Scrutiny Committee has asked for a debate has, as the House knows, three main aims. First, it seeks to settle the distribution of 15 million ECU — about £8 million — allocated to transport infrastructure support from the 1983 budget. Secondly, it proposes the Council's agreement to a list of projects for possible support from 1984 funds, from which the Commission would later make selections. Thirdly, it provides machinery for the Council to agree lists of projects in the years 1985 to 1987, from which the Commission would also make choices. If accepted, the proposal would give the Commission the right to decide the form and level of aid for each project it supported, subject only to this not exceeding 70 per cent. of the total cost for each project helped.
In short, this is a mixed measure. It is less ambitious than the earlier proposals of 1976, which would have bound EC members indefinitely to spending of this kind and settled appropriate procedures and criteria. But it is considerably more far-reaching than the one-year regulation agreed in 1982, which settled the spending of 10 million ECU — about £5·5 million — from budget funds for that year but made no attempt to legislate for the future.
There is a strong case against a five-year regulation. The motion invites the House to note these proposals arid to support the Government's views on them as set Out in the explanatory memorandum of 14 October last.
The most important point was our firm opposition to any provisions looking beyond 1984. Neither the level of funding nor the projects which the Council would wish to support in 1985 to 1987 can possibly be known with any certainty for some time ahead. The Government see no point in legislating to cover so very uncertain a future when other incidents may cause us to give different priorities closer to the dates concerned.
The Select Committee on Transport has adopted a guarded approach which I think all hon. Members understand. When it reported on this subject in May 1980 it urged the Government to proceed with great care and, in particular, to enter into no binding commitments which might work to this country's long-term disadvantage—a view with which the Government agree.
The Select Committee also saw the potential merit of new non-agricultural funds but was deeply sceptical about the prospects of containing and proportionately reducing spending on the common agricultural policy. It therefore thought—rightly, as events have since proved—that the total Community funds likely to be available in the next few years would be far too small to contribute significantly to reducing our net contribution to the EC budget. It therefore saw no advantage in rushing into an early agreement, especially as the terms then proposed were far too cryptic and opaque to make it clear how the balance


of benefits to members was likely to be distributed. The Government agreed with the Select Committee on all those points.
With the Athens summit fresh in all our minds, I need hardly remind the House how very much more acute the wider problems to which the Select Committee pointed have since become. So long as effective solutions to those problems are not found, the availability of significant funds for transport infrastructure in future years must be seen as even more uncertain and unpromising than before. From a transport point of view I personally find that hard, but we must get our priorities right, as I suspect the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will agree.
The Government's view is therefore that we must continue to resist any EC proposal on transport infrastructure support which seeks to bind member states further ahead in time than makes sense in the light of the Community's current political and financial realities. In other words, we wish to adopt a step-by-step approach, confirming only so far as we have some direct feel ahead. I am glad to say that most other EC members are of the same mind and that the Transport Council discussion which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended on 1 December showed little support for provisions covering 1985 to 1987. I hope that the House will welcome that realistic approach as much as I do.
I must also mention certain other important issues. First, the Select Committee was especially keen that the criteria for selection of projects and appraisal of Community interests should be better defined. It wished to secure inclusion of sea and air as well as inland schemes and to guard as far as possible against disturbance to our national spending priorities, which it saw as acceptable only when it offered clear overall national advantage. The Government agree closely with the Select Committee's view on minimising the disturbance to national priorities and we shall keep this steadily in view in considering any particular case that we might propose for support.
We have been able to make useful progress in the past couple of years on methods of project appraisal. We especially welcome the fact that there is now general agreement to concentrate support on cases from which substantial economic benefit can be expected. We also start from national appraisals of particular schemes, adjusted as appropriate to secure consistency in the methods operated by the various member states.
Appraisal can be complete only when we all understand what we mean by "Community interest". Unless, as in 1982, the selection of the cases and the levels of aid for each can be settled pragmatically, some clear-cut criteria are needed to establish what constitutes so-called "Community interest", and this is not particularly easy to do.
The Commission has attempted to do this in the proposals now before the House. The attempt is a good deal closer to satisfying the objectives than the 1976 text, though, as the explanatory memorandum of 14 October indicates, we have a few, though significant, reservations. The criteria nevertheless are vague and the present draft would allow a large amount of discretion to the Commission on the schemes it could select. We do not find this satisfactory and we would like to see decisions firmly in the hands of the Council of Ministers.
The House ought to know that, although we have pressed at every opportunity for firm agreement on the inclusion of sea and air schemes and, indeed, secured the sustained support of several other members on this issue, there is a tenacious minority view in favour of confining support to inland schemes. There is a need to have legal unanimity. Therefore, since this tenacious minority has not yet been shifted from its view, we are unlikely in the short term to progress to our point of view.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend said that the Government would like the Council of Ministers to make the determinations on these matters. Can she tell me what resources, what expert advice and what facilities are available to the Council of Ministers to make a value judgment on the respective merits of road schemes in Greece and roadways in Britain?

Mrs. Chalker: Each country has its own assessment of importance. While one sometimes believes in looking at the presentation of schemes when they are discussed, and this may be a little subjective rather than objective, there is a general review by the Commission of what achievement in economic terms such a scheme might make. That one would accept the view of the Commission without debate is, I think, very unlikely, but I for one, on any of the schemes with which we have had anything to do, have tried to ask the questions that would fit the economic benefit of such a scheme into the same sort of criteria as we apply in the House to our own schemes. The ability of the Commission to do that work for itself without sharing the knowledge with members of the Council is what we are questioning. That the Council of Ministers may make more progress on some of these Community matters than the Commission seems to be making in transport matters at present is something which we all believe to be very important.

Mr. Taylor: If this proposal goes ahead, my hon. Friend may shortly have to sit down in the Council of Ministers and make a decision on whether more importance should be given to the road link from Athens to the Peloponnes or to the improvement of the Nuremberg marshalling yards. I wonder how she and the others sitting round the table get the information to make an assessment on whether the improvement of the Nuremberg marshalling yards is more important to the Community than, say, the road link from Athens to the Peloponnes.

Mrs. Chalker: We are fairly thoroughly briefed on such matters before we attend the Council of Ministers meeting. We are briefed by our own civil servants, who may not in all cases be experts in what goes on in the Peloponnes, but, from the criteria which each country uses for its own schemes, they may have a better chance than a Minister without the aid of a fairly thorough briefing of reaching a judgment.
There is always the possibility, through our permanent representatives, of finding out more about the schemes if insufficient information was provided initially. As my hon. Friend will know, we must rely to some extent on the briefing by officials, but, having done something of that nature once, we learn whom to ask and what questions to ask. Sometimes we do not make progress because we do not receive the right answers, and so we do not agree to schemes going ahead.
The Government will try to register the point on project appraisal with all members. Simply because we do not


agree common criteria, we could not oppose any short-term proposals that offer a net benefit. I am sure that the House would not wish me to turn down a net benefit for Britain simply because all the nations had not agreed watertight criteria.
Because we are looking for net benefits in the short term, we have spent a long time discussing the years 1983 and 1984. Current discussion in Brussels is firmly focused on provisions for 1983 and 1984, and not beyond. We shall certainly not agree to any criteria which would prejudice the prospects for that. It is especially important to secure wording which reflects, as does the text before us tonight, the interests of peripheral members and the need to link the whole Community more closely together.
We have not always taken sufficient account of the role played—sometimes negatively for the older members of the Community—by some of the newer members. The newest member obviously has special problems.
We shall be resuming discussion at the next Transport Council on Tuesday 20 December. While we will not necessarily complete the discussion, we believe it right to pursue our current objective to achieve as firm a decision as possible for 1984, as well as for 1983, on the basis that we should then be making some progress that would supply us with a net benefit over the two years taken together.
We shall also be working, in broad agreement with most other members, for a considerably lower percentage ceiling of support for each project than the Commission has proposed, towards concentrating decision-making much more substantially in the hands of the Council, and pressing the case for unanimity at that level. I believe that we shall achieve that, but we must talk about it in the Council and have the full facts before the Council first.
Beyond the short term, we shall continue to approach Community transport infrastructure support as constructively as we can in all the current circumstances, but our policy must also, as it has done hitherto, pay close regard to the national interests—very much in the spirit of the Select Committee's valuable report in 1980.
I hope the House will conclude that it can support tonight's motion on the basis of this account of the main factors that influence our current policies.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House is grateful to the Minister for her customarily lucid explanation of the motion before us. Her remarks about the future drift of Community policy were uncharacteristically pessimistic. There was a typically robust intervention from the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). As it is fairly late at night, we do not want to fight the battles that were fought in the previous debate on the London Regional Transport Bill.
I thought that the Minister's reply to her hon. Friend was, for her, less than satisfactory.

Mrs. Chalker: It was honest.

Mr. Snape: The fact that it was honest did not make it any more satisfactory. I was not implying that it was anything but honest; it is just that I thought that the hon. Lady was uncharacteristically pessimistic about future Community projects.
I approach this debate in the hope that our deliberations will enable the Secretary of State to gauge the views of

hon. Members before his meeting with other EC transport Ministers on 20 December. The Opposition take no great exception to the proposals outlined in this measure. The expenditure that is proposed, at least for the Community, is on a comparatively small scale and there could even be marginal benefits for the United Kingdom resulting from it. Any influence that the Minister can exert to expand those benefits for this country will be heartily welcome.
At the same 20 December meeting the Council of Transport Ministers will, I understand, discuss Commission proposals for the liberalisation of road haulage. The Commission's long-standing objective, the House will be aware, has been to carry forward that process of liberalisation, and that position will doubtless be supported by the British Government. To be fair—I trust that hon. Members will agree that I like to be fair in these matters — that attitude, though I may not have agreed with it, has been adopted by successive British Governments, Labour and Conservative, though without this House giving that policy a great deal of scrutiny.
I shall return to the question of the general drift of Community policy on the road-rail balance later in my remarks. First, dealing with the proposals before us, I have a few tentative recommendations to make to the Minister about the way in which their application could be improved.
Last year the Community was able to spend 10 million ECU—a dreadful word that does not mean anything to the majority of people—or about £5 million on three projects: contributing to the construction of marshalling facilities, to road projects in Greece, and to a feasibility study into means of financing the Channel tunnel. Now the Commission is proposing expenditure of 15 million ECU in respect of the 1983 budget, although regrettably—the hon. Member for Southend, East made this point—no United Kingdom projects are included in the proposals. Why do projects in other countries seem to command greater priority than projects in the United Kingdom?
Without wishing to open old wounds, I must say that, as Britain is the greatest net contributor to the EC, it is not unreasonable to expect that this country might be included in some of the projects. That has not been the case in 1983. Meanwhile, in 1984 greater expenditure, of 60 million ECU, is envisaged for a pool of projects which included things like the development of north-south road ard rail links in Greece, the European north-west, south-east transit axis—that scheme being dependent, I understand, on the conclusion of negotiations with Austria— and a number of road, rail and waterway projects elsewhere in the Community.
From the British point of view, those could involve expenditure on the M25 London orbital motorway or improving rail access to Harwich and its port installations. But, as we heard from the Minister, there are no guarantees that the expenditure will be made in the United Kingdom. One reason for that may be the approach that the Government adopt. While the Minister properly says that we look at short-term rolling programmes for such projects, it is surely not unreasonable for the Opposition to ask that the Government — being the committed member of the EC that they are—should pursue sonic long-term projects on transport infrastructure and have a debate with our fellow members of the Community about the long-term desirability of some projects, including their long-term financing, from the allocation of expenditure on transport infrastructure within the EC.
I shall refer to the Commission's policy paper of earlier this year on transport infrastructure investment, Command (83) 58 final, in which the Commission announced that it would be
in accord with the recommendation of the European Parliament and the Commission's policy if the use of criteria for the application of Community instruments gave emphasis to proposals designed to transfer traffic from road to rail where this is economically justified.
In the short term that surely argues in favour of the Government staking a claim for expenditure on improving rail access to the port of Harwich. If the hon. Lady replies, will she tell the House whether the Government intend to pursue that project at the meeting next week?
The Government must not neglect the longer-term potential for Community investment in Britain's railways. The Commission, through Mr. Frohnmeyer, recently identified three areas in which it sees an important future role for railways. On 26 September, Mr. Frohnmeyer of the EC transport commission spoke at a transport 2000 conference on "The future of Community railways" in London. He set out the three areas. They are, first, social and regional passenger mass traffic in densely populated areas, secondly, inter-city passenger traffic between major centres up to distances of about 300 to 400 miles, and, thirdly, bulk goods traffic on long-distance international routes.
The first two areas have an obvious application to the United Kingdom, and the House deserves an assurance from the hon. Lady that she and her Department will consider that in any future discussions. It is possible that Community investment could be justified in Britain with regard to rail electrification and to infrastructure renewal in our larger conurbations. Both are desperately needed but are unlikely to be achieved under the present financial constraints imposed upon British Rail. As the hon. Lady made clear, in the light of the budget crisis now gripping the Community, it is admittedly difficult to peer too far into the future. I understand that it is unlikely that any agreement will be reached on a transport infrastructure programme going beyond the next two years. The reasons for that are apparent and understandable.
Nevertheless, if the Community has a future beyond the next two years, it is vital that Britain should derive some tangible benefit from membership. A practical contribution to railway development would be one. It would be helpful if the Government were to cease their sleight of hand with the United Kingdom's budgetary rebates. Where rebates are allocated to transport, they should go to transport instead of being swallowed in the Treasury's maw in a bookkeeping exercise.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why?

Mr. Snape: I should have thought it obvious that when rebates are made by the Community for transport projects, that is how they should be spent. At present they are not. They are used as part of general taxation. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, no doubt he will say so in his normal forthright manner. He will not be surprised to learn that I completely disagree. The Opposition take the view that when these rebates are made for specific transport matters, that is how they should be spent.
I wish to deal with the Community's general policy as it applies to road and rail transport. British Rail and the

railway unions have made recent representations to the Secretary of State. Deep misgivings exist about the bias in Community transport policy towards road policy and, on the continent at least, inland waterways. It is felt, we believe justly, that the effect of Community policy has been to gear the conditions of competition in the transport market in favour of road transport in particular.
The Commission's recent document "Progress towards a Common Transport Policy", with its renunciation of the need to proceed on the basis of a global approach to transport, is seen as confirming a policy which preserves the advantages enjoyed by road transport over the railways.
The EC rail undertakings and the railway unions within the Community are therefore asking the Community authorities to take steps to bring competition into line and are making some specific requests. I hope that these requests will be acted upon by the Government, because my hon. Friends and I believe they are justifiable.
The first request is for the introduction of an infrastructure cost allocation system in which the real cost of each transport mode is properly quantified. It is impossible to quantify it throughout the Community. They are asking for the abolition of distortions in the conditions of competition resulting from inadequate regulations in road and inland waterway transport. Because of the lateness of the hour I will not attempt to detail the inadequate regulations or, indeed, the equally inadequate enforcement of some of the regulations in this country at least, particularly on the overloading of heavy goods vehicles coming from the Channel ports.
The EC rail undertakings and railway unions are also asking for greater strictness in monitoring the application of the regulations, combined with stiff penalties for noncompliance. Again, it is well known that the penalties, for example, for overloading heavy goods vehicles are laughably inadequate. They are seeking, too, the retention of the current road quota system, pending proper harmonisation of transport competition, a point that I hope the hon. Lady will pass on to her right hon. Friend before the meeting next week.
These are the wider objectives that the Secretary of State should be pursuing at his meeting on 20 December. If he does so, I assure him of the Opposition's support. In the meantime, he can surely take a small step towards allaying the anxieties of the railway organisations throughout the Community by getting the right result in the negotiations on the draft regulation and, unlike 1983, getting some return for a very large outlay for the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Hill: We must thank the Select Committee on European Legislation for bringing this dangerous draft legislation before the House. As my hon. Friend will know, I was chairman of transport for Europe in the first European Parliament delegation. At that time, not only on lorry quotas but on the fulfilment of the ideals of Europe, the transport infrastructure to make possible the free passage of goods throughout Europe was uppermost in our minds.
Where the draft regulation is perhaps moving out of line is that it is going too far ahead in Community terms to 1987. We are asked to take note of this. We must say plainly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that when he attends the meeting on 20


December he must beware of Greeks not bearing gifts. If we look at the draft legislation we see that it is signed by a member of the Commission, obviously the commissioner for transport, a Mr. Contogeorgis, who I assume is a Greek, and that it will be sent to a Mr. Yannis Haralambopoulos, who is president of the Council.
One of the things I most fear is that the draft to the Council says:
Whereas, as the European Council stressed at the meeting of 17 to 19 June 1983, a special financial effort is required in 1983 and 1984 to modernize the main transport routes in Greece".
It may be that Greece, as the most recent member, is in need of greatest help on transport infrastructure. Nevertheless, two more worthy countries are likely to join the Community before 1987.
The draft regulation contains a graph of the amount of money that will be needed, even for the present limited programme. Page 2 of the financial record shows that we start off very slowly at 10 million ECU, but by 1987 that will rise rapidly to 200 million ECU, a total expenditure over the next five years of 530 million ECU, equivalent to about $600 million. That is not a small amount.
One of the great things about such regulations is that a little something should be given to the United Kingdom. I am not sure how we missed out in 1983, but the Minister will probably tell me that we put forward several schemes, none of which was accepted by the majority. However, in 1984, we have put forward two miserable schemes. The M25 is fairly near completion. I am not sure about the access railway to the port of Harwich, but, when compared with some of the 1984 projections put forward by other members, it is clear that we shall merely be given crumbs from the table.
One of the dangers, of which I am sure the Secretary of State is well aware, is that article 4 refers to
The Council, acting by a qualified majority upon a proposal from the Commission'.
Therefore, regardless of all our protests, we could be easily out voted on any of these projects. As a result, article 4 should be feared.
Article 8 states:
The Commission"——
this has nothing to do with the Council—
shall take decisions to grant financial support on the basis of the lists referred to in Article 4.
Again, the majority on the Council will vote for the list, in whatever priority it wishes to assess it, and the Commission will grant the money. I can see no provision for restricting the Commission on what it can spend on any project.
We should also beware of article 11, which reiterates what I have said about articles 4 and 8. It goes on to outline the possible projects for 1984. What about the possible projects for 1985, 1986 and 1987? If the Community spends more on peripheral roads, railways and waterways, the whole emphasis of transport infrastructure will be destroyed.
Those of us who take an interest in Europe know that transport infrastructure has hardly moved since we joined in 1973. The Transport Commission is not high up in the list of priorities. The job of the commissioner for transport is generally a dead end job. People try to avoid it.

Mr. Snape: It is a dead end job here.

Mr. Hill: It is not like the view that we have here of transport. In the Community, transport never has enough

budget and there is too much to do. Even on projects over the years such as lorry quotas and railway modernization——

Mr. Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend explain how any organisation can have far too much to do with no significant budget? Is not that a contradiction?

Mr. Hill: I should have said that apparently there is too much to do. I left out that important word.

Mr. Moate: But what is being done?

Mr. Hill: Exactly. What is being done? Sometimes, even in my two and a half years in the European Parliament, I have wondered what they were all doing in the Commission.
There is a great deal of danger in the regulation. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is on top of the matter and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be forewarned. Majority voting on the matter is to be avoided.

Dr. John Marek: Article 5(c) is about the improvement of traffic links between the outlying member countries and the rest of the Community by trunk routes. I shall illustrate that by talking about north-east Wales and giving an example of how the article might be brought into practice.
The roads to north-east Wales come from two areas—the north of England and abroad, from countries such as France and Germany. Roads from the latter areas go via London and come up through the midlands. If one wants to go to north-east Wales from the midlands, one goes via Whitchurch, which many heavy lorries do. They then go either to Wrexham or carry on to north-east Wales.
Recently a motorway was opened to the Telford bypass. Some traffic will now go by the Telford bypass up through Chirk and Rhosllanerchrugog to Wrexham, either stopping at Wrexham or going on to the other industrialised areas in north-east Wales.
The Department of Transport and the Welsh Office have made plans for that road. The Ruabon bypass will be dual carriageway. South of that, the Newbridge bypass will be a 7-metre road, and south of that the Chirk bypass will be a 10-metre road. Then we go into England. In England will be the Gobowen bypass and the Shrewsbury bypass. There will be a bit of dual carriageway between Shrewsbury and the motorway, but the rest of the road between Shrewsbury and the Welsh border will be exactly as it is now, although it will be upgraded in parts.
Many people find it unsatisfactory that there is a hotchpotch of road schemes, some wider and some a little narrower, and some dual carriageway. Traffic that has not used the road going through Whitchurch has to get round Wrexham. There is no propel' way to do so, with the result that heavy lorries go through residential areas. Lorries have been so high that on one occasion men on top of a lorry lifted up telephone lines so that the lorry could get through the recommended route round the town.
Two authorities are responsible. The Welsh Office is responsible for roads, and on the other side of the border is the Department of Transport. If only one authority were responsible, I am sure that there would be a better system and a better overall plan to provide the road infrastructure


between this part of industrialised Wales — north-east Wales—the midlands and the centre of the Common Market.
We should also examine railway connections to the area. In the summer, someone proposed that the railway line between Wrexham and Chester should be made single rather than double track. That line carries much freight to many parts of the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that we are discussing the funding of transport infrastructure by the EC.

Dr. Marek: I am dealing with that matter as this is a scheme for infrastructure which the EC could consider funding. If I am out of order I shall certainly accede to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wrote to the Welsh Office and asked why the Wrexham to Chester line was to be single track. The Secretary of State said that he did not know anything about it. I therefore wrote to the Department of Transport, which also knew nothing about it. I went back to the Welsh Office, which told me that British Rail must be responsible. I therefore tried British Rail and was told that the Welsh Office had asked it to propose the matter. The Minister is laughing but I have the letters with me and am prepared to show them to her. The deputy divisional general manager, Mr. Gibbins, wrote a letter to the press saying that the Welsh Office had asked British Rail to bring the matter forward. The Welsh Office wanted to save money by building road bridges over single track rather than double track.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the document before the House.

Dr. Marek: The relationship is that there are schemes in the document and there are schemes which could be but are not in it. I shall conclude by saying that the Government should consider north-east Wales with a view to formulating a general view of the area's infrastructure to see whether a scheme which involves the area can be submitted to the EC in connection with the document. However, I must explain the background before doing that.
Welsh Office Ministers then found out what their civil servants were doing. I am not blaming the Ministers, as it is the civil servants who are at the back of many such schemes. The Ministers then said that it was true that they wanted to save a little money by building a road over only a single-track line. The point is that civil servants in England in the Department of Transport did not know what civil servants in Wales in the Welsh Office were doing. Moreover, Ministers in England did not know what Ministers in Wales were doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not abuse the rules of the House. We must stick to the document.

Dr. Marek: I honestly think that what I am saying is pertinent to the document. It will take a great deal to convince people that, if liaison between civil servants in different Departments and between Ministers is bad in Britain, it will be good on a Community-wide basis. The

European Community has a role to play in the sphere of transport infrastructure by providing the necessary mechanism or finance to get projects such as the tunnels under the Channel or the Alps or between Italy and Sicily under way. I doubt that the European Community can decide whether it is correct to provide money for a project in Harwich, Wexford, Nuremberg or Mulhouse as it does not have the intimate knowledge necessary to make value judgments between such projects. Of course, the Commission may say that it will try to divide the available finance, thereby keeping all the applicants happy. However, the Common Market Commission should not operate in that way. It should be trying to form a co-ordinated transport infrastructure policy, but I doubt whether it can.
North-west Wales is a prime example, as the border intervenes, to show that the transport infrastructure for roads and railways has not been examined on a sufficiently wide basis so that a coherent plan can be formed for the area. Will the Government examine whether more liaison can take place between the different Departments? If so, I urge the Government to consider including a project from the area as part of the regulations.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Having listened to many ridiculous orders being discussed, I can say that the Minister's speech was one of the most encouraging that I have heard as regards the extension of European interference into our national affairs. She said, first, that we will not allow such a programme unless the United Kingdom receives a net benefit; secondly, that these matters should be dealt with not by the Commission but by a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers; and thirdly, that we should not consider any scheme until we can assess the budget measures. I hope that that is a fair assessment of the Minister's speech.
It is high time that all hon. Members ceased pretending that a grand master plan exists for European transport. The Minister made it clear that we are discussing a nonsensical device that could be used to redistribute funds and to compensate for the nonsenses of the CAP which badly affect the United Kingdom.
Why on earth does such a programme exist? Surely it is nonsensical to establish a rigmarole of having European civil servants rushing round Europe making value judgments or assessments on whether there will be any benefit in having a road link from Athens to the Peloponnese, the Shankhill-Brai bypass or the renewal of the railway line to Plati? European Community civil servants would have grave difficulties in understanding the merits of such projects. It is obvious that such judgments can best be made by national Governments.
Clearly there will be no such programme unless an increase is made in the Community's resources. Much as I would like a major reform of the CAP to take place, the Government clearly have not asked for that. At best, we are looking for a holding of the position on resources. These silly transport and energy programmes can be implemented only if there is an increase in resources and if we try to match some of the spending on the CAP. But are we not in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water and of setting up a whole lot of Euro-wide schemes to provide regional, social, transport and energy help at a


time when Britain is being sensible enough to cut out all those Socialist planning nonsenses and to seek less interference and less public spending?
I would find it difficult to explain to my constituents that the Government had to cut spending on health and housing benefits because of a cash shortage and at the same time explain why more money had to be spent on the extravaganza of Europe and on financing railway lines between Lorissa and Plati, and so on. Whatever happens in the negotiations, I hope that we shall give our hard-pressed Minister, who has spoken so ably tonight, a little more time to consider Britain's transport problems instead of going through the nonsense of sitting round a table trying to make value judgments about the respective merits of, for example, the Nuremberg marshalling yards. The Minister has enough to do without going through a charade that is simply a device to try to get back some cash for the nonsenses of the CAP.
My next point is very important. Many of us are aware that county and district councils are overworked. However, I am worried by the number of them who are spending a lot of cash on jaunts to Europe to try to obtain what they call "European money" for transport projects. It is clear from the paper that the schemes have to come from our Government. We then send them to the Commission, which decides which ones to put forward. The Council of Ministers or the Commission will decide which schemes are all right.
However, some silly people have regrettably been encouraged by some of the so-called European Assembly men, or Members of the European Parliament, to spend a lot of ratepayers' money on jaunts to Brussels to see important people. They then start talking about their need for roads, bridges, sewers, and goodness knows what. It is all nonsense. It is right that Whitehall should put forward any projects, and I am sure that if the Minister has her way value judgments will be made solely on the basis of how the cash is allocated between the Governments. We should discourage local authorities from going through such nonsense. I appreciate that some of them are doing it for publicity. Sometimes people do that, because they want to give the impression that they are fighting for their areas. Local authorities, Members of Parliament and even Governments do that.
However, if we disregard some of the nonsensical populists, such as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), and consider the merits, it is clear that some district and county councillors and others genuinely think that a trip to Brussels or Strasbourg will advance the transport needs of their area. It would be much better if such people contacted our Department, where the decisions are made about what is put forward for consideration by the Commission or the Council of Ministers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the desirability of having a quiet word with or sending out a circular to all councils telling them not to waste their money on jaunts to Strasbourg or Brussels, because they will not help. However, it will help if people keep in touch with the Government.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Minister was splendid, and the Government's approach is commendable. I shall be happy if we do away with the nonsense of so-called European policies, which are simply nasty devices to try to redress the CAP's injustices. It would be much better if we could—as my right hon. Friend the

Prime Minister rightly said — begin to face up to problems instead of creating silly devices of no practical value whatever.

Mr. Roger Moate: If my hon. Friend the Minister of State was not completely and sufficiently heartened by the support she received from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), I will fill her cup to overflowing by also offering her complete support for the attitude that she and the Government have adopted in response to this regulation.
The motion before us suggests that we should welcome
the views set out in the Secretary of State for Transport's Explanatory Memorandum".
If one actually reads the memorandum, one finds that the Government have expressed the position superbly. Wherever the document asks for nothing, we give nothing. I support that completely. Where it suggests that something should be slightly strengthened, the Government accept it, and I think that I can go along with that proposal. They are opposed to any provisions covering 1985–87, and I completely accept that. The explanatory memorandum says:
The Government would be ready to support any short-term scheme which provided clear net benefit for the United Kingdom; but, taken together
the present proposals
fall a long way short of this.
So the Government are opposed to that too.
In a splendid statement, the memorandum continues:
The Government's attitude to these proposals will also be broadly affected by the course of negotiations".
That is a fairly acceptable statement. Broadly, the Government are asking for nothing from the House and I will gladly support them in that attitude.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman's speech and, for that matter, the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) show all the long-term strategy of—I do not know what the right term is. If they take their heads out of the sand, they will see that, whether they like it or not, this is the reality. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government are asking for nothing. Like the rest of the Community, the Government are contributing to the schemes included in the motion. What the Minister is saying is that Britain should have something to say about this expenditure from the outset rather than when the money has been committed.

Mr. Moate: The Government are being very realistic in their approach. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments, I will elaborate.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in her statement, was being realistic. She was exposing from the Front Bench, in a slightly more polite and charming way than perhaps is the case when people speak from the Back Benches, the farce of this document and the so-called transport policy. It is a farce, and in any other circumstances it would be a monstrous joke, but in these circumstances it is more of a tragic joke.
All the grand words that wrap up this great document and all the ambitions it contains—
a multi-annual programme for transport infrastructure
— mean, in terms of improvements to our transport infrastructure, nothing at all. Seldom has the European ideal been expressed more optimistically and more ambitiously in our constituencies than by Members of the


European Assembly saying that they will get support for this project or for that project and that there will be boards up supporting this great Euro-infrastructure scheme. Nothing has happened, nothing will happen, and nothing should happen. This document gives it all away. For all the great list of schemes and for all the grand words, how much are we talking about for 1983? The document says £7·5 million for the whole of this great continent. It is a joke and we all know that it is a joke. The Department knows that it is a joke but it is the Department's job to go along and try to demonstrate some way of getting back some of the money as part of the refund to which this country is entitled because of the excessive amounts we are paying to the Community. It is not about infrastructure but about reclaiming some of the money due to us. It is an elaborate farce.
Even if the funds increase a little—even that is in some doubt because it depends very much upon the budgetary proposals — it still will not be of any significance in terms of rail, road, sea and air infrastructure throughout the continent of Europe. I will go further—it should not.
The schemes are submitted by the respective Governments. The Government of this country decide that a particular project is worthy of support. That is the way it should be. It is nonsense to suggest that we should be competing with other countries for funds for access to the port of Harwich. What nonsense that is. Are we really to submit to decisions by President Mitterrand, Mr. Karamanlis or anybody else about the merits or otherwise of improving the road and rail links with the ports of Harwich or Sheerness? We know that that is a farce, and yet we go round in circles producing documents with the panoply of Euro-language pretending that it is significant. Surely it is more intelligent to say that such decisions should not be part of the Euro-strategy but that they should be for the national Governments.
Let us go further and examine what is happening. If we did concede, the money would not be available. It is worth looking back at the 1983 budget. The second largest item in the Euro-budget was not transport, as we can tell from the figures. It was not the social or regional fund. The biggest item was agriculture and the second biggest item was the administration cost of the whole Community, including all the institutions.
How much has been spent on spending the £7·5 million? My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), in a helpful intervention based upon his experience in the European Assembly — which he misnamed the European Parliament—told us about the vast amount of work that its Members had to perform and of their spending on real improvements to our transport system of £7·5 million. What has that cost in terms of Commission manpower; in terms of our Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister of State? How often has the Minister had to go to Brussels to fight for our share of this tiny, pathetic road programme? How much of our civil servants' time has been expended? That is never costed. A vast amount of time—from that of the Prime Minister to all the civil servants— is taken up on this type of Euro-farce.
The document has nothing to do with the ideals of hon. Members in their attempt to produce a better Europe. We would do far better if we got rid of this nonsense and ended

the type of debate that we are having tonight. We all know that it is farcical. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made an honourable, clear and lucid defence of what she is doing. She is not asking for much, but she is approaching the matter with scepticism—indeed, with an element of cynicism which is appropriate—with no great expectation of any major contribution to improving the United Kingdom's transport arrangements. On the basis of what she has asked for, I am delighted to give my support.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I should like to make some brief remarks in response to the debate. I am not sure how I should judge the complimentary remarks by my hon. Friends. I welcome their support, but I shall always try to be a realist. I still believe that it is right for us to work with our European partners. If understanding each other's transport problems is one way of maintaining the relationship in good order, I shall do my best to ensure that that relationship is maintained.
It is I who will be going to Brussels next week, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall do my best to ensure that the agenda is decided with Britain's view more than adequately represented.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) seems to have spoken a long time ago. I realise that having no United Kingdom projects in the 1983 list seems to mean to him that we have not been doing our homework, but that is not so. As long ago as January or February of this year, a very full list was sent to the Commission. I was not able to go to the transport meeting because it was on 9 June, when I was busy doing something else. My noble Friend Lord Lucas attended it in my absence.
Following that meeting, I took up the whole question of transport infrastructure projects with Commissioner Contogeorgis, who is a Greek, and I shall refer to our Greek partners later. I took that action because I believed that Britain's view should be clearly put by the Minister who has had perhaps the most responsibility in the European discussions on this subject during the past two years. I was heard with much understanding, and some of the projects—I should not like to say that this was due to that discussion, because I know that it was not—that are listed for 1984, and some of the projects that will be undertaken if we proceed with the regulation, will be, I hope, the fruit of some of the work done by the Committee of Permanent Representatives, by my officials and by myself during summer of this year.
I should point out to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that the projects listed for 1984 include not only two sections of the M25 but the road and rail access to Harwich and the rail electrification project for Colchester to Harwich. There are a number of projects which represent important exports for British firms and which, therefore, have a high economic benefit. I made the point that the only projects that would succeed were those that would bring high economic benefit.

Mr. Moate: I am trying to put this matter into context. My hon. Friend mentioned part of the M25 project being put on the list. How much money will come back to this country as a contribution to road works in relation to the whole project?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot give my hon. Friend that answer off the top of my head. When I have looked up my detailed papers, I shall write to him. He is right in saying that it is not a substantial amount but, as I believe he will know, we have given this project the highest priority in all our transport spending. I do not want to stray from the regulation, because I should not like to incur Mr. Deputy Speaker's displeasure.
We take fairness between modes of transport extremely seriously. Many of the discussions that I have had round the table in Brussels and elsewhere have been about the balance between modes of transport.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East referred also to the liberalisation of road haulage, and over the years we have regulated road haulage more elaborately than rail haulage. We have also made sure — partly because of an initiative in the summer — that the Community regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs are properly enforced. I put on record the fact that in the stringency of enforcement of regulations the United Kingdom yields to no one. We are already enforcing at a much higher level than many of our partners, and one of my efforts has been to get our European partners to put the same efforts into enforcement as we have.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East asked that we should look ahead as far as possible and make it clear that we are ready and willing to put forward rail proposals. When these measures have a strong community interest we shall do that, and I have already mentioned the Colchesterto-Harwich line project.
I do not believe that the position is anywhere as dangerous as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) started by saying. He said that he feared the Greeks bearing gifts. I agree that enlargement means that we must be careful about the development of infrastructure, and I have always taken a cautious view. The Government are prepared to move only one step at a time and in a direction that seems to us not only to be beneficial to this country but to represent the ideals for which we joined Europe.
As I have said, we are well represented in the 1984 list. My hon. Friend said that the schemes were miserable, but they compare well with the Greek share if they are supported at a reasonable rate. On the other aspect that worried him, I should point out that the draft regulation includes a ceiling on aid which will stop any one or two projects taking too much of the cake. We shall keep a close watch on what happens there. I agree that the selection from the 1984 list is crucial. That is why we believe that decisions should be unanimous and not on a qualified majority basis, so as to protect the United Kingdom interest. That I hope to achieve.
Perhaps I might now reply to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I know the stretch of railway line between Wrexham and Chester and the proposal for a Gresford-Pulford bypass. Had the hon. Gentleman written to me he would certainly have received the information that he sought. My office and the Welsh Office are in constant communication about anything concerning the border between Wales and England. Although I have no responsibility for the A55 in north Wales, the hon.
Gentleman will know that that is a prime project in the Welsh Office road building programme. I should point out, however, that none of the roads in that area comes into the same class of economic benefit as roads and other projects competing for Community infrastructure funds. They are generally far smaller projects and do not bring the level of economic benefit attaching to the projects qualifying so far.
I was somewhat taken aback at the prospect of a Scotsman bearing gifts when I heard the initial comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). He asked me earlier about the advice available to the Council of Ministers. I hope that I did not mislead him when I said that we depended on and received specialist advice. There are two formal advisory committees on which member states sit—the Transport Infrastructure Committee and the Advisory Committee on Transport—but those committees act only under instruction from the member states through the Council machinery. They provide the dossiers to which I referred, which are available to all member states so that adequate comparisons may be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also spoke at some length about those who decide to visit Europe to make the claims of their area known. I think we agree that some of them go with too high hopes. Nevertheless, a great deal of education is still necessary about the differences and similarities across Europe and the problems that each country faces. Unlike my hon. Friend, I certainly should not douse the idea of greater exchange and understanding of projects, from which mutual benefits may be gained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) depicted the entire scenario as very small and insignificant. One is tempted to wonder why he wished to enjoy our company at this hour if the whole matter was as downbeat as he suggested. Certainly our hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) would take a very different view. I suggest to him that he talks to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham about Sheerness, because that port has great hopes for the future. I tease my hon. Friend when I so tempt him, because I believe that we cannot do better than to make our approach clear to the House. This I tried to do earlier.
I listened to the debate with close interest. I am glad that I appear to have the support of all hon. Members who have participated in it. Most of the views seem broadly to have converged, but I shall not neglect to make clear in Brussels what the House feels about the Government's approach.
Although it is very late, I am glad that hon. Members have been given the opportunity to tell me their views before I attend next week's Council of Transport Ministers. I thank hon. Members for their support in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 8922/83 setting out proposals for financial support for a multi-annual programme for transport infrastructure; and welcomes the views set out in the Secretary of State for Transport's Explanatory Memorandum of 14th October.

Industrial Training

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.
As the House will be aware, about this time last year I introduced a similar order concerning the construction industry training board. It was debated and approved unanimously in Committee. The present order similarly requires parliamentary approval.
Hon. Members will be aware of the importance of the construction industry to the economic growth of the country. Output is beginning to rise, and I emphasise the need for higher quality training and more skilled workers. That is particularly so in this industry, with a total work force of 1,500,000.
It is important to ensure that all firms except the very small contribute to costs. We must not be bedevilled by skill shortages as we were in the past. That is one reason why the board was retained. The House will be aware that the employers wanted it to be retained.
The levy is expected to raise more than £42 million and it will be used for the very necessary training in the industry. The levy that covers the period to 31 March 1984 can be seen in three parts. There is the occupational levy of a fixed amount for each occupational group employed, subject to an overall maximum payment limit of 1 per cent. of total payroll. There is the 2 per cent. levy on payments made to labour-only subcontractors, such payments being the amount by which a company's payment to such subcontractors exceeds payments to the company for labour-only subcontracting work that is performed. Finally, there is the 0·2 per cent. levy on brick manufacturing employers which is estimated to cover the sector's share of the board's operating costs for a period of 26 months from the sector coming into scope in October 1982. As the House will be aware, a levy return is completed by every employer in scope each year.
The 1982 Act, as did the previous legislation, allows exemption from levy to be given according to training performance. The board, however, operates a levy not tied to exemption and for this it must have evidence of the industry's support. This has been obtained regularly for a number of years. For small firms there is a small firms exclusion that applies to those with an annual total payroll of less that £15,000. They pay no levy, but they are able to claim grants from the board subject to a reduction of their claim by £150 which is equivalent to approximately a 1 per cent. levy. The payroll limit has not been increased for some years.
At the board meeting on 24 March 1983 there was unanimous support for the levy, and this included all the employers' representatives present. All the employee representatives at the meeting supported the levy. Letters of support had been received from, for example, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the Electrical Contractors Association and the National Association of Shopfitters.
I recommend the proposals to the House. They have been the subject of detailed consideration and wide consultation and they are widely supported in the industry.

I am sure that the board will continue to play a significant role in the industry's training needs. The proposals will also play a significant role in the Government's new training initiative.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: At first sight, the order is quite unremarkable. As the Minister said, other than the fact that it provides for the inclusion of the brick industry the order is identical to those laid in previous years, and especially last year.
However, this year we are faced with the stark and unpalatable fact that there has been a serious decline in the number of young men and women being trained in the various branches of the construction industry. Although the Minister may boast about the recovery in the industry, the facts are rather different — as evidenced by the decline in industrial training.
A tragic decline in apprenticeships has taken place during the past five years. In 1979 there were 155,000 industrial training apprentices; in 1980, 149,500; in 1981, 147,600; in 1982, 123,700, and for 1983 the figure has fallen to 99,000. In the construction industry, the figure for 1979 was 12,431; for 1980, 14,035; for 1981, 11,435; for 1982, 9,291, and for 1983 the figure is down to 7,971. Those figures belie the Minister's attitude tonight and illustrate the fact that the work of the construction industry training board faces great difficulty because of the background of decline. The figures echo and highlight the Government's appalling record on training at every level.
I spent many years in higher education, and I have knowledge of what some Conservative Members like to call the education and training industry. At whatever level we look—whether universities, polytechnics, colleges of further education, technical colleges or comprehensive schools — there is not a segment where the Government's influence has been beneficial. Indeed, for every aspect of training, especially the industrial training boards, the Government's record since 1979 has been a disaster.
I represent the textile industry, and I feel strongly about the decline in industrial training boards. There are lessons to be learnt from the order. It applies to one of the few remaining industries that have training boards. I was present in the House when the dagger that pierced the heart of the textile industry industrial training board was delivered by the Minister from the Government Dispatch Box. We must learn from the demise of our industrial training boards. The CITB which has survived is doing a good job in difficult circumstances.
Hon. Members should take the opportunity to peruse the CITB's guide to its work, edition No. 5, 1982–83. They cannot but be heartened by a group of men and women left to carry on the industrial training of their industry against the background of economic collapse, who are trying to pursue in any way they can means to keep the heart beating in the construction industry. One only need read some of the CITB's recent press releases to realise how problematic survival is in the construction industry today. In many ways the CITB has illustrated what, even in poor circumstances, an industrial training board can do and what a potential for innovation this board has. The record of——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going rather


wide. I am assuming that his remarks are a preamble, but the order is about the levy and the method by which it is assessed. I hope that he will come to that quite quickly.

Mr. Sheerman: I can quickly tie up the subject of the levy with the record of the CITB, which has been one of great enterprise; and the levy, which has been increased over the years, has been used to embrace developments in Government strategy and in moves by the Manpower Services Commission to produce new training initiatives. When we remember that the levy has been used to produce the largest single youth training scheme, we see what benefits can be achieved, in co-ordination with the MSC.
It is a pity that all the industrial training boards are not still in existence; they have been savagely struck down by the Government. Were they still in existence, they would be able to achieve the same results. The Government must face the fact in respect of this levy—and, naturally, the Opposition will not oppose them in this matter—that if those boards were still around, we should stand a better chance, even with a Conservative Government, of salvaging what was left of a proud industrial training heritage.
We can detect some real problems at the heart of the CITB and the way in which the levy is being used. It has been rather frustrated in the use of its levy by the decline in the construction industry in the last four years. It has used the levy to try to stem the catastrophic drop in apprenticeships and training that has taken place in what I call the regular training side of the industry.
Consequently, out of frustration, the CITB has thrown itself into initiatives involving the youth training scheme. I would not gainsay that initiative, but I ask the Minister to note a problem that is emerging, a problem that occurs when a body like the CITB is given a job to do and, as with many industrial training boards, uses the levy to train for skills for the industry as the board knows it, so to speak. When one examines the dilemma that that produces, one cannot be surprised at the terms of a press release dated 22 November from the chairman of the CITB entitled "Hands off Construction YTS. Warning to Manpower Services Commission." That gentleman, who has been entrusted with the chairmanship of the CITB and responsibility for the levy, said:
Training a craftsman in the construction industry involves training in a wide range of skills, and in this context I would like to know exactly what the MSC are talking about when they ask us to bring in broad-based training in 1984.
He went on:
I have seen broad-based training in Europe and I am certain it is not what the British building industry wants and would stand for.
He continued:
Under some European systems, trainees do not know until the end of the last nine months of a three-year apprenticeship exactly what craft they will specialise in.
Then he said pointedly:
I ask you: what builder wants that? To my mind, a builder wants a bricklayer who is a bricklayer, a carpenter who is a carpenter, a plasterer who is a plasterer, and so on. He wants a craftsman who can do his work efficiently and effectively and has been properly trained to the standards which will enable him to do so.
Finally, he said tellingly:
I can tell you what the builder does not want for the standard of work required today. He does not want the MSC's idea of a general handyman expensively trained by the taxpayer turning up on site and giving the service of a Jack or Jill of all trades and a master of none and incompetent at his so-called craft.

We can see some difficulties if the levy is to be used in that way. An industrial training board is traditionally geared towards training for skills, but out of frustration it is increasingly involving itself in a different programme which will provide a different product.
There is conflict in the case of the CITB, and I hope that the Minister will turn his attention to that aspect, which puts the CITB and any traditional training body in a dilemma. I believe that the type of bitter exchange between Mr. Leslie Kemp and the MSC is something to which the Minister should turn his attention.
The chairman of the CITB wants trained, skilled men for his industry, and as he cannot achieve that by normal methods he is attempting to do so through a powerful commitment to the YTS. There is bound to be a conflict, and I believe that it underlines the lack of precision and coherence in the Government's industrial training strategy. I believe that the MSC rightly sees the YTS as a general non-specific training scheme whereas the CITB wants to continue training for the skills that the construction industry must have if there is to be a recovery within the industry.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is room for compromise? For too long there has been a belief that specialist training in a narrow craft must take a long time. The MSC is trying to introduce a broader-based training which will provide an effective base for a more rapid training skill. If one studies the work done by the armed forces in my constituency, one sees the high level of skill that they achieve within a short time. The MSC's operation is overdue and worth having.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray into the question of training. This is a comparatively narrow order which deals with a levy and the way in which it should be assessed.

Mr. Sheerman: I have been guided, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the way in which the debate on this levy has gone during the past four years. I do not want to stray into a general debate on training, but I believe that it is important to point out that the levy goes towards a training system in an industry that is vital to our economic recovery. If the levy is being used in a way which does not further the CITB' s interests, it is of concern to the House and the country.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested, there are some interesting paradoxes. I am sure that we both agree that there is a lack of coherence in the Government's attitude towards training about which the Government should think carefully.
If you would allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are two points of detail about which the industry is worried and which I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister. The first is that the levy is per capita rather than being a percentage of the payroll. There are voices in the industry who think that this bears down unfairly on the smaller firm; I am not referring to the small firm that is excluded because it is under the £15,000 limitation mentioned by the Minister in his introduction but the small to medium firms which believe that payment on a per capita basis in terms of skilled men works against them and in favour of the largest employers, the big builders and particularly the civil engineering side of the industry which employs fewer skilled men and more unskilled labourers.


I understand that in regard to the contract side of the levy that is met to some extent, but some in the industry would say there is not enough consideration of it.
There is also a belief that the construction industry training board should use its levy to widen its powers specifically to organise, register and even indenture the apprentices and that it would be logical to use the levy and the CITB as the focus of the apprenticeship system and even for the modernisation of that system rather than leave it with the Building and Allied Trades Joint Industrial Council, which, according to some people in the industry, seems to be living in the past.
We support the work of the CITB and its role in training over 100,000 people. It operates for 48 firms within the industry, and the levy is used well. It is another example of a training board which could not operate without the close co-operation of trade unions and employers. Much of the industrial fabric of the country, which so many people in the Government wish not to reveal to the public, could not work without the close co-operation of the modern trade union movement. We see this embodied in the construction industry training board and in the trade unions' co-operation in the Manpower Services Commission and their very great commitment to the youth training scheme and to training schemes for the future.
Lord Carr talked about the desperate need for a better vocational training system and the great lack of that system in the past. We must turn our attention to that. The Government should reflect on the success of and the prospects for the CITB and consider bringing back the other industrial training boards so that they can produce levies for them, too, in late-night motions like this.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for supporting the order. I am particularly grateful to him, as I am sure the construction industry training board will be, for the praise which he heaped on both the board and its staff for the amount of work which they have done over the years. As he will probably be aware, I keep closely in touch with the chairman of the board and the staff and I know that their commitment to training in the industry is very strong.
If I got the hon. Gentleman's figures wrong, I apologise. He said that the number of apprenticeships in the industry had dropped. I agree. I was slightly at sea about the figure of about 7,000 which he gave for the year 1982–83. The figure available to me is 13,704. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has drawn his figures from a different source.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the method of raising the levy. He will be aware that all members of the

board, including the Federation of Master Builders, agreed to the method of raising the levy this year. I appreciate that other points may be made in future, but this year all the members totally agreed.
The hon. Gentleman commented on how the apprenticeship system within the industry should be focused and organised. I hope that he agrees that it is better that the industry, with the construction industry training board playing an integral and important role, should make up its own mind about the best way to proceed in the future.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). We want to get away from time serving and the age of entry and concentrate on standards. That is also the wish of the CITB. I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, aware of your warnings about straying outside the remit of the order, but the interrelationship between the youth training scheme and the apprenticeship system under the CITB is important to what both are trying to achieve.
The youth training scheme is a flexible foundation course on which further skill training can be built. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about the press release from the chairman of the CITB, I have no doubt that the board and the Manpower Services Commission are at one on what they wish to achieve in terms of initial skill training built upon the youth training scheme. I assure the House that I shall be working towards that in the next few months.
I am grateful to the CITB for the important part it plays as the managing agent for more than 20,000 places on the youth training scheme. The youth training scheme is at an early development stage and is, therefore, something on which we can build and from which we can all learn. Nevertheless, it is flexible — an attitude which the industry and managing agents should adopt.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am sure that the CITB and the Manpower Services Commission will be grateful to him for his constructive attitude to the methods by which both bodies are pursuing youth training. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, & c., BILLS

Ordered,
That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Richard Body, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Humfrey MalMs, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Barry Porter, Mr. John Ryman, and Mr. Gary Waller, be members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp; c., Bills.—[Mr. Cope.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Law of the Sea (United Nations Convention)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Dick Douglas: At this early hour of the morning, I feel a little hesitant about raising the important subject of the United Kingdom's attitude to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but that is the way in which the House works, or fails to work.
My interest in the matter is well known to the House. I served on the Committee dealing with the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. I have consulted a large number of people on the matter. However, the views that I express are mine and thus unencumbered by departmental or other interests. I do not wish to be personally offensive to the Minister, but I doubt whether he will express views that are as unencumbered or whether he will express the views of the majority of Government Departments or involved United Kingdom interests. I suspect that the House will hear not the Minister's views but the views of the Prime Minister and one or two individuals supported by some mining groups.
As the House knows, on 10 December 1982 the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was opened for signature. The Prime Minister remarked recently on the difficulties of getting 10 nations to see eye to eye. How much more difficult it is, therefore, to obtain agreement among over 100 nations. It is a measure of the achievement of the United Nations that on the first day when the treaty was opened for signature, 119 nations signed—a record in international legal history.
However, among the nations withholding signatures were the United Kingdom and the United States and some other industrialised nations, including the Soviet Union. In a statement to the House on 2 December 1982, the Minister made it plain that the Government's major objection related to part XI of the treaty, dealing with the regime for seabed mining. Countering the point that I made, the Minister said:
American and British companies must speak for themselves. I am not aware of any public statements that they have made in the United States, in Europe or elsewhere in which they have called for the proposals of the law of the sea convention to be accepted by nation States." — [Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 408.]
The operative word is "public". The Minister must have known or been aware of a closed meeting that took place at Lancaster House in early November 1982. I suspect that he attended it.

The minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I chaired the meeting.

Mr. Douglas: Such are the guarded statements of lawyers, particularly Scottish lawyers.
The minister said that he was not aware of any public statements. That is true—there was no public statement. At the meeting, which the hon. Gentleman chaired, a number of parties were invited to put their views to a committee of Ministers drawn from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Energy, the Department of Trade and the Treasury. A reliable commentary on the proceedings suggests that both Shell and British Petroleum, which have relationships with

consortia associated with investigations of the ocean bed's mineral resources, were in favour of the United Kingdom signing the treaty. Also in favour were the General Council of British Shipping and the Advisory Committee on the Pollution of the Sea, and, although less prominently involved, Brindex also supported the general line. Opposing, it is suggested, were Rio Tinto Zinc, Consolidated Goldfields and organisations representing British patent holders' interests. Last but not least was British Steel, in the person of Mr. Ian MacGregor. It seems that virtually all the Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Defence, were in favour of signing. It appears that the major stumbling block came from the then Department of Industry, the views of which reflected mining interests and those of Mr. MacGregor
Mr. MacGregor is a Scot by birth but an American by choice. His views on this matter reflect doctrinaire United States opinion rather than the wider concerns of the United Kingdom. It is perhaps surprising that he has such a ready listener in the Prime Minister. A possible reason for that is that they share a detestation of possible enterprise and thus consider that the International Sea Bed Authority, as proposed by part XI of the treaty, would be public enterprise writ large on the international scene. I shall not suggest that the International Sea Bed Authority and other provisions of part XI are perfect. Some aspects of it might be altered but I am willing to go into more detail on that when time permits.
The prime Minister has expressed doctrinaire views on the matter in the House. The suggestion that opposition to the treaty arises because of the seabed mining provision does not gel when we consider the whole treaty. We see from the introduction that the United Nations regards the treaty as a package deal.
Perhaps wiser spirits are guiding the Government as they have adopted a much more cautious approach The line seems to be that we have signed the final Act and therefore we can take part in the work of the preparatory commission, albeit without a vote, and, at all events, the treaty remains open for signature for two years. We have a two-pronged or dual approach to the problem.
Commercial and defence shipping will obtain the necessary protection through customary law. That will protect non-contracting states. However, the General Council of British Shipping, the views of which ought to weigh heavily with the Government, does not share that view. It lists the provisions on freedom of navigation and pollution and agrees that they are considerably in advance of the present regime for several reasons. First, it establishes the width of the territorial sea at 12 miles. Secondly, it defines innocent passage and makes it clear that coastal states cannot make regulations with regard to design, construction, and equipment and manning which affect foreign ships in innocent passage unless they are implementing international agreements. Thirdly, it sets up a regime for straits. Fourthly, it establishes a regime for archipelagos. Fifthly, it provides sanctions for pollution offences to financial penalties except in circumstances of wilful and substantial pollution in the territorial sea. Sixthly, it imposes duties on states to preserve the marine environment.
The council concluded that, while some aspects of the treaty might take an international norm, most of the important points that I have mentioned would nor. It said:


If there is no convention, there will be no beneficial development and we can expect unilateral legislation, lacking the balance obtained by negotiation.
The council
strongly recommends signature and eventual ratification of the Treaty.
Enlightened opinion in the United States is that that country is making a mistake in not signing the treaty. Elliot Richardson, former United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, said recently:
The real importance of the Law of the Sea Convention cannot be found either in the sum of its parts or in its extraordinarily comprehensive whole. It lies rather in its demonstration of the capacity of 160 sovereign states to work out accommodations among vital competing interests. This is an achievement whose significance will loom even larger as the world increasingly finds itself forced to come to grips with its own inseparability.
Both Elliot Richardson and, in his own way, Leigh S. Ratiner, have unique experience of these negotiations, and, as the latter said:
the guardians of pure conservative ideology may have won a battle when the United States stood alone at the Law of the Sea Conference, but the United States may lose a very important war.
My concern is that the United Kingdom, through the Prime Minister's adherence to such ideology, may involve us also in the loss. This is a package deal, and the Government must answer the following questions. First, why are we alienating international opinion? The vast majority of Commonwealth members have signed the convention, and may move towards ratification. We are alienating international and political opinion.
Secondly, what are the advantages attached to our trying to go it alone, albeit proceeding towards a mini treaty for seabed mining operations, based on ourselves and other nations having independent legislation? I have asked several questions about the legislation, and I have received cryptic and corrected answers.
A letter dated 17 November from the Overseas Development Administration states:
Applications for licences have been received under this Act. But for the time being, both for technical and for economic reasons, no one is commercially exploiting the seabed either under national legislation or under the Convention.
Although I recognise that we are dealing with future developments, I do not envisage any company risking economic, financial and technical resources to exploit the deep ocean bed purely because of the legislation of individual nations. We are aligning ourselves with the United States for reasons that are difficult to grasp. I argue that it is against our national advantage to do so.
We are alienating international opinion and proceeding in a way which is inimical to our economic position. Moreover, we are a major maritime nation, and there is no guarantee that we would continue to enjoy the so-called customary and conventional rights of passage which we have enjoyed, especially the passage through various straits, if we did not sign the convention.
I appreciate that the Minister will argue and suggest that we are doing well in the preparatory commission, and that we are influencing events, but it would be much better if we signed the convention and took a full part in the preparatory commission. In those circumstances, our persuasive voice would be heard all the more.
To sign the treaty would be to the United Kingdom's best advantage. Much has been heard from the Prime

Minister and from Conservative Members about adhering to the domestic rule of law. I challenge the Government to adhere to the international rule of law, to support the principles of international law and the common heritage of mankind and to sign the convention and thus ratify the treaty.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on his good fortune in having this subject chosen for debate, even if it is at such an unfortunate hour.
The hon. Gentleman began by expressing interest as to whose views I would be putting forward. The views that I shall express will be mine. It so happens that they coincide with the views of the Government, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is entitled to assume that they coincide with the views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that the House would take great pleasure in such a happy combination of circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a remark that I made when making the statement to the House on 2 December 1982. He questioned my justification for saying that I was not aware of any public statements that had been made in support of signing the convention. He then chose to quote from what he perceived to be a discussion at Lancaster House. He will appreciate that that is an important location for great occasions.
However, if the hon. Gentleman re-reads what I said on 2 December 1982, he will see that I was saying that no deep seabed mining companies had shown any enthusiasm for the convention or any desire to see it signed. I was not suggesting then, and am not suggesting now, that there are not other interests, and possibly other companies not involved in seabed mining, that might wish to see the convention signed for their own reasons. However, there is no reason to qualify in any way at this stage what I said then, which was that that does not apply to those companies that might be or have been involved in anything connected with seabed mining.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister should not be so evasive. Which seabed mining consortia were present at Lancaster House?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman details of private meetings, and he should not expect me to do so. If he thinks that he has good sources of information on the subject, he can quote them. I shall be even more explicit. I am not aware of any companies involved in deep seabed mining that have said either publicly or privately that they wish to see the convention signed. I have made that clear to the hon. Gentleman.
The Government's view has been quite clear from the beginning. We would have liked to see a convention that not only met our own requirements and which we could have signed but which would attract an international consensus and could therefore have been endorsed by the international community. However, that did not prove possible, not just because of ourselves or the United States of America but because a very significant number of countries felt unable to sign the convention.
The hon. Gentleman made various references to particular interests that have shown their support for the convention. That does not come as a surprise to me or to


the House. I mentioned that in the statement that I made on 2 December 1982. I said that there was a significant number of provisions in the convention that were acceptable to the United Kingdom, and that parts of the convention, for example those relating to navigation, the continental shelf and pollution, were helpful. I ended my initial remarks by saying:
I should emphasise to the House that we could not participate in the seabed regime on the present terms and for that reason we could not ratify the convention unless the provisions for the deep sea mining regime become satisfactory."—[Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 404.]
Therefore, the Government have made it abundantly clear from the beginning that we do not in any way question that there are parts of the convention that are helpful and are certainly acceptable. If that was all that we had to decide about, we would have been happy to sign the convention. However, we have made it clear that the provisions on deep seabed mining do not fall into that category, are fundamentally unacceptable and unattractive to the Government, and that as we have no choice but to sign the convention as a whole—we cannot sign parts of it and decline to accede to others — and attach importance to the seabed mining provisions, we have been unable to sign.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is already aware of those aspects of the seabed mining regime that we found unattractive. There are several of them, but I shall briefly mention one or two. The provisions involve the establishment of an international seabed authority. It is a substantial and expensive bureaucratic structure that would involve particularly industrialised countries such as the United Kingdom in very substantial initial capital expenditure and continuing expenditure on items that relate not to the enterprise's profitability but simply to the creation of a major international organisation that would no doubt provide large-scale employment for those administering it but which would not have any direct impact on the profitability of deep seabed mining. That is a major problem. Thus the bureaucracy and the expense should be borne in mind.
It has been clearly demonstrated by the relatively small number of companies and countries that would take part in deep seabed mining that they regard the provisions as being a profound disincentive to making the massive investment required if deep seabed mining is ever to become a reality.
The hon. Gentleman made great play about the large number of countries that had signed the convention. He will be aware that a high proportion of them are either landlocked, with no direct interest in the law of the sea as such——

Mr. Douglas: India.

Mr. Rifkind: —or they are countries which, for the most part, do not have either the will or the ability to involve themselves——

Mr. Douglas: New Zealand.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should allow me to finish my remarks as I allowed him to finish his—or they are countries which, for the most part, do not have either the will or the ability to involve themselves in deep seabed mining. They have no price to pay. They would be the beneficiaries of the activities of other countries' companies and industrial structures.

Mr. Douglas: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he knows the normal procedure for doing so.

Mr. Douglas: We have heard these arguments before. We heard them during the debate on the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill. The countries preparing the convention in a way covered them because in terms of initial investment massive compensation and "privilege" is given to the consortia and the nation states which embark on the technological innovation of deep-sea mining. That is the provision of the treaty at present.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should apologise for the fact that he has heard the arguments before. The hon. Gentleman has put his case before. I plead guilty to consistency because it would be rather astonishing if I gave completely different answers from the ones that he has had before to exactly the same questions. I do not think that he would consider that a more satisfactory response than the one he is presently receiving.
These are factors of major importance which have led to most of the countries concerned—even some of those that have signed the convention—making it abundantly clear that they have not the slightest intention of ratifying it unless there are major changes. The United Kingdom Government, as a matter of general principle, do not believe it right and proper to sign an international agreement unless they expect to be able to ratify it at the end of the day.

Mr. Douglas: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may intervene if he wishes, but he should let me make my speech in my own way.
A number of other Governments do not approach these matters in the same way. They feel able to sign conventions or international treaties even when they have come to a view that it is improbable or impossible that they will ultimately ratify unless there are major changes. We believe it wrong to approach matters in that way. We believe it right to sign a convention only if we expect to ratify when ratification becomes appropriate.
Not only the points that I have mentioned led o the Government's decision. There are also the provisions on the transfer of technology which are unattractive to industry and which the hon. Gentleman appears to acknowledge as being an important and relevant consideration. There is the provision about the review conference after 15 years that could lead to even some of the safeguards and some of the concessions that were made during the convention being overruled and replaced irrespective of the wishes of those countries that will be involved in deep seabed mining operations. This adds up to a package of disagreeable and unattractive provisions, unnecessarily bureaucratic and extremely expensive for those countries that will be involved. That is an important consideration which we have had to bear in mind.
Both this evening and on previous occasions the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the United Kingdom, in deciding not to sign the convention, was motivated solely by its desire to be in step with the United States of America and that this is the sinister explanation, irrespective of the arguments that may be used. Not only the United Kingdom but a total of 37 countries have refused or declined to sign the convention. Although some of them are allies of the


United States, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be unwise to suggest that this is the dominant criterion. He may like to know that among the countries that have so far declined to sign the convention are Albania, Libya and Syria—not countries that one automatically thinks of as being anxious to appease the United States and to be in step with its foreign policy.
As I have said, 37 countries have declined to sign the convention. They include half the European Community — major countries such as the Federal German Republic, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy. These countries have not decided irrespective of the arguments to be in step with the United States.
I am sad to say that there is no consensus. A number of countries have concluded — some because of the seabed provisions and some because of other considerations relevant to them—that they cannot identify with the convention in its present form.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West asked why we were alienating international opinion. There is no single international opinion on such a matter. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise the United Kingdom if we took the view that what he calls international opinion was more important than the United Kingdom's national interest. Each country which signed the convention perceived that it was in its national interest to be in favour of such action.

Mr. Douglas: How does the United Kingdom get the advantages of the major provisions in the treaty, particularly in relation to the seagoing aspects, without signing the convention?

Mr. Rifkind: Signing the convention does not give any rights. Only when the convention is ratified are rights given. It is an important distinction. There is no question of the convention being ratified for some time. About 60 countries must ratify the convention before it comes into

force. So far, fewer than a dozen countries have ratified. The countries which ratify will have to take into account the major financial burden that will fall upon them. That will be an important consideration. A number of countries which have signed the convention have said that they are unlikely to ratify unless major changes are made.
We do not lose any opportunities, even if substantial, unless and until the convention is ratified. That is not likely to be in the immediate future. Customary provisions continue to apply not only to the United Kingdom but to the international community.
There are some doubts about the question of navigation. We find the convention helpful in that it clarifies the provisions and removes the doubt. If that could be taken in isolation, it would justify signature, but it is not the end of the world if we are unable to take advantage of the provisions because the customary law will continue to apply. For the most part it meets our requirements.
We have not boycotted the convention, unlike the United States, which has refused even to send observers to the preparatory commission in which we are playing an important part. We hope that in time states which have signed the convention will show a willingness to consider significant changes to the seabed mining regime. Perhaps we are aiming at an unrealisable objective, but that is our objective. The United Kingdom, half the Community and many other states are hoping that this is the best way to make progress.
I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the other aspects of the convention. If that is his only case, he is knocking at an open door and there is no disagreement. We must either accept the convention in full or decline to accept it. For the reasons that I have explained——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Two o'clock.